Shocking News: The MSM Didn’t Do its Job!

Just a bit flabbergasted by this from Rex Murphy at the National Post:

As the bad economic news continues to emanate from the United States — with a double-dip recession now all but certain — a reckoning is overdue. American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama’s rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign — and it hasn’t reclaimed them since…

…The media trashed Hillary. They burned Republicans. They ransacked Sarah Palin and her family. But Obama, the cool, the detached, the oracular Obama — he strolled to the presidency…

This is, I guess, all a bit of a surprise for Murphy – but, for me, the surprise is that in 2011 anyone could still be shocked by the MSM liberal bias.  I mean, come on:  let’s review:

1.  The MSM covered up relentlessly for the Clinton’s when Bill was in office.  No real questions about the massive, illegal fundraising (it is actually illegal for Al Gore to have collected a bag of foreign cash from a Buddhist monastery).  No real attempt to investigate just why the Congressional GOP decided to impeach (honestly, it really is illegal for a President to lie under oath and suborn perjury…even if it is “just about sex”).

2.  Hillary was allowed to coast to the Senate in New York without the MSM ever asking just why a first lady of no discernible gifts or experience should be allowed to carpetbag her way in to the Senate.

3.  Al Gore was puffed up like no tomorrow in spite  of his part in illegal fund raising and his definite lack of intellectual heft, executive experience or leadership ability.

4.  John Kerry got a complete pass on how badly he lied about American soldiers in Vietnam and was allowed to present himself in the MSM as a war hero, rather than being correct portrayed as a back-stabber who threw his war comrades under the bus in order to ride anti-war, liberal sentiment in to high office.

5.  And then comes Barry – the fifth in the series.  And someone is surprised that the MSM carried his water?  Covered up for him?  Slandered his opponents?  This isn’t about a love affair with Obama; it is the MSM determination that whomever opposes a Republican will get good press.  Sure, there was probably an added zest to MSM lies and cover-ups as they were thrilled that they got to do it for a black man (convinced, as they are, that we’re all racists, this was just another way for them to stick it to us, in their minds)…but had Hillary got the nomination, they would have been just as sycophantic to her, just as slanderous against McCain (and Palin) and just as determined to re-elect her as they are, today, to re-elect Obama (stories of the MSM turning on Obama are false…one or two MSMers with a shred of honor might, but most of them will never stray from the party line).

This is what the MSM does – and I was delighted the other day to hear Rush refer to an AP reporter as the “stenographer” of the report…that is pretty much it:  whatever comes out of the DNC and the Obama campaign will be slavishly retailed to the American people.  A few oddities will creep in – the MSM does like to be able to refer to those few instances where they spoke the truth (usually on page 3 or later and always outweighed many times by the lies and cover-ups)…but the basic thrust of MSM reporting will be the burnish Obama and his Democrats and slander the Republicans.  And if the GOP wins next year, the MSM won’t learn their lesson, at all…they’ll just keep slandering the Republicans and wait for the next liberal messiah (which will be fun for us, because it will probably be governor Cuomo of New York).

It doesn’t matter how stupid a Democrat is:  the MSM will say they’re smart.  It doesn’t matter how corrupt a Democrat is:  the MSM will always say that the GOP is more corrupt.  It doesn’t matter how incompetent a Democrat is:  the MSM will just say he has an unusual leadership style.  Short of murdering someone on live television, there is nothing a Democrat can do to break MSM support…they will always find some justification for him; some excuse for failure; some slander to hit back at the GOP with.  In a real sense it has gone beyond bias and turned in to slavish devotion…that the MSMers feel any dissent from the Democrats is treason to all that is good and beautiful in the world.

And, so, don’t anyone act surprised…but, also, don’t anyone act concerned.  The people have tuned out the MSM – automatically discounting any bit of nonsense they put up and learning to read between the lines, just as citizens of totalitarian nations are required to do.  By filling in the gaps with what is not reported, but is obvious, the truth is made clear…and made doubly so by the increasing number of people relying on the New Media for the full story.

68 thoughts on “Shocking News: The MSM Didn’t Do its Job!

  1. David September 18, 2011 / 1:05 am

    2. Hillary was allowed to coast to the Senate in New York without the MSM ever asking just why a first lady of no discernible gifts or experience should be allowed to carpetbag her way in to the Senate.

    Really? No discernible gifts? Did you support Palin per chance? I see no evidence in the following that Hillary Clinton is well suited to a career in public policy.

    – For her senior year, she was redistricted to Maine South High School, where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in the top five percent of her class of 1965

    How many senators were National Merit Finalists?

    – During her freshman year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans

    Seems like something a future politician would do.

    – Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley’s black students to recruit more black students and faculty.

    Again, pretty politically active compared to modern college students.

    – Intern at the House Republican Conference

    – Invited by moderate New York Republican Representative Charles Goodell to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination

    – Graduated with a Bachelor of Arts,[26] with departmental honors in political science

    – She became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver its commencement address

    – Served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

    – Volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor

    – She was recruited by political advisor Anne Wexler to work on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Joseph Duffey

    – She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973

    – She began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Her first scholarly article, “Children Under the Law”, was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973

    – In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    – In February 1977, Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence

    – President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million.

    – In 1979, Rodham became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.

    – From 1982 to 1988, Clinton was on board of directors, sometimes as chair, of the New World Foundation.

    – From 1987 to 1991, she chaired the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession

    – Clinton served on the boards of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992) and the Children’s Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992)

    – she also held positions on the corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985–1992), Wal-Mart Stores (1986–1992) and Lafarge (1990–1992).

    – She was the first First Lady to hold a postgraduate degree

    – She is regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history, save for Eleanor Roosevelt.

    – In January 1993, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform.[

    and blah, blah, blah. Truly a wasted life. You get the point.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2011 / 2:02 am


      There is nothing in there which impresses me…no business experience, no executive experience, no military experience, no charitable experience (meaning actually going out to help the poor, physically; rather than just sitting in charitable organization offices)…she went to school and hung around the powerful (which got her, among other things, her board position with Wal Mart…an Arkansas-based corporation with a vested interest in good relations with then-governor Clinton, and his wife) and then married a man who rose high…I see nothing in there which would indicate a “yeah, sure, let’s allow her to coast unchallenged to a Senate seat”.

      This is just about the opposite of, say, Calvin Coolidge..who rose after marked success at the local and State level, gaining both legislative and executive experience and proving himself many times over as a man of absolute integrity and willingness to work fairly and honestly with his opponents. Where is anything Hillary has said or written which indicates deep thought over issues? Whence comes her philosophy? What is, after all is said and done, her philosophy? Can you identify it? Other than a raw desire for power, a lip-service to the poor and a grasping attitude towards personal wealth, what is there in Hillary’s background which impresses? Do keep in mind that I consider her one of the three people in the Obama Administration of some sense and judgement. But I wouldn’t trust her with any actual responsibility if I were to be made President…she simply hasn’t done anything to merit it.

  2. David September 18, 2011 / 3:25 am

    Other than military experience, she has all the experience you claim she doesn’t have, and it was listed in my first post. It’s pretty clear to me at this point that you have no interest in being engaged intellectually.

    • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 10:33 am


      an empty pantsuit Marxist-criminal…in other words for you kneepadders a viable candidate.
      too bad Mao is dead you would LOVE him.

    • Amazona September 18, 2011 / 10:37 am

      David, you are quite a typical Lib, deeply invested in identity politics and overly impressed by academic credentials, while dismissing actual real-world experience.

      You cut and paste quite thoroughly when defending Hillary—did you pay as much attention to the equally documented record she established during the short time she actually DID have a job? You know, when her husband’s status and potential got her hired at the Rose Law Firm, where all she did was cover up and facilitate shady goings-on for a shady enterprise? Not exactly professional to somehow manage to not keep records, was it? Or to misplace those she did keep?

      • David September 18, 2011 / 8:44 pm

        I have no idea what you’re talking about. My main concern was the “no discernible gifts” line. I would never say that about anyone with a Yale law degree. And, for the record, I have very little liking of HIllary or any other mainstream Democrat. I just think it’s unfair to call her ungifted because you don’t like her politics.

    • Amazona September 18, 2011 / 10:39 am

      David, I’d love to see your praise for Barry’s extensive educational and professional background. After all, he’s the President of the United States.

      And BTW, I and nearly everyone else I know agree that Hillary was more qualified for the job than Barry, though let’s admit, the bar was set pretty low.

      • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 10:49 am


        the bar was set so low the world champion limbo dancer couldn’t have gone under it.

      • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 10:52 am

        I wonder where ole hil was????

        For several years, the Washington Weekly has published a compiled list of alleged crimes in the Clinton administration. Current events quickly make the list incomplete, necessitating updates. The list, now including 33 Clinton appointees, is by no means exhaustive, but does include activities before taking office.


        (1) Used State Police for personal purposes.

        (2) Directed State Police to fabricate incriminating evidence
        against a political opponent: Terry Reed.

        (3) Conspired with David Hale and Jim McDougal to defraud the
        Small Business Administration.

        (4) Was complicit in the shipment of drugs through Arkansas.

        (5) Allowed laudering of drug money through ADFA.

        (6) Appointed and protected Arkansas Medical Examiner Fahmy Malak
        who repeatedly obstructed justice by declaring murders as
        “suicides” or “accidents.”

        (7) Has never accounted for his actions during 40 days behind the
        Iron Curtain during the Vietnam War.

        (8) Tipped off Governor Tucker about upcoming criminal referral.

        (9) Violated Arkansas campaign finance laws.

        (10) Violated his oath ofoffice to uphold the Constitution by
        signing into law an ex post facto law, a retroactive tax

        (11) Fired RTC chiefAlbert Casey to allow his friend Roger
        Altman to monitor and block Whitewater investigations.

        (12) Fired FBI director William Sessions to prevent an
        autonomous FBI from investigating the Foster suicide and from
        resisting cooperation in the Filegate operation.

        (13) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey to prevent
        Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton.

        (14) Offered State Troopers federal jobs in return for their
        silence about Clinton’s crimes.

        (15) Blocked Justice Department indictments after Inspector
        General Sherman Funk found “criminal violations of the Privacy
        Act provable beyond reasonable doubt” when former Bush employee
        files were searched and leaked to the press.

        (16) Appointed friend and now-convicted felon Webster Hubbell to
        number 3 position in Justice Department in order to be able to
        block Whitewater criminal referrals.

        (17) Blocked the criminal trial of Representative Ford, a
        Tennessee Democrat.

        (18) Appointed a campaign activist to head the Commodity Futures
        Trading Commission, without the mandated “advice and consent” of
        the Senate, to derail a probe of his and Hillary’s financial

        Bill Clinton is under investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.


        (1) Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades,
        from Tyson Foods Inc.

        (2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing
        legislative reform of same.

        (3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira
        Magaziner in Health Care trial.

        (4) Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince
        Foster’s documents in the Rose Law Firm.

        (5) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred
        documents that were the target of a court probe.

        (6) Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster’s office.

        (7) Told aides to lie about their removal of documents from
        Foster’s office

        (8) Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document
        sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.

        (9) Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing

        (10) Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle
        Grande land flip con.

        (11) Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office

        (12) Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of
        Travel Office Employees.

        IRA MAGAZINER, Hillary Clinton Senior Advisor

        (1) Violated federal law when he held Health Care Task Force
        Meetings in secret and refused to release documents

        (2) Lied in court about the composition of the Health Care
        Task Force.

        U.S. Attorney Eric Holder found insufficient evidence for indictment of Ira Magaziner.

        BERNARD NUSSBAUM, Former White House Counsel

        (1) Obstructed justice in the Foster suicide investigation by
        blocking access, removing documents, lying about his removal of
        documents, and by retrieving Foster’s pager from Park Police.

        (2) Attempted to quash a Whitewater investigation at the RTC
        through White House liaisons.

        Nussbaum has resigned and is under investigation for lying to Congress.

        GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, Senior Advisor

        (1) Took a $600,000 loan below market interest and with
        insufficient collateral from Nations Bank, a bank having business
        before the Clinton Administration.

        (2) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings.

        (3) Attempted to have Whitewater investigator Jay Stephens at the
        RTC fired.

        MIKE ESPY, Former Agriculture Secretary

        (1) Took bribes from Tyson Foods Inc., which was under regulatory
        control of his Agriculture Department.

        Espy has resigned and is under investigation by a Special Counsel

        ROGER ALTMAN, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

        (1) Lied to Congress during Whitewater hearings. (2) Lied to Congress about having lied to Congress. (3) Instructed Ellen Kulka and Jack Ryan at the RTC to block the Whitewater investigation by L. Jean Lewis. Roger Altman was forced to resign.

        RON BROWN, Former Commerce Secretary

        (1) Has taken bribes from almost everybody. Says it is part of
        the way Washington works. The allegations are too numerous
        and complicated to be detailed here.

        Ron Brown was still under investigation by an Independent Counsel when he died in a plane crash in 1996. The investigation continues.

        LES ASPIN, Former Secretary of Defense

        (1) Through criminal negligence was responsible for the death
        of Army Rangers in Somalia. Has never been held accountable
        in public hearings.

        Les Aspin has resigned and is deceased.


        (1) Fabricated charges against White House Travel Office
        personnel to have the business taken over by Clinton friends.

        (2) Coerced FBI and IRS agents into complicity with this

        Kennedy and Watkins have resigned.

        CATHERINE CORNELIUS, Travel Office employee

        (1) Removed documents from White House Travel Office.
        Because those documents later became the subject ofa trial
        against Office Director Billy Dale, that could amount to
        obstruction ofjustice.

        PATSY THOMASSON, Director of White House Administration

        (1) Lied to Congress about the composition of the Health Care Task Force and the size of its budget. (2) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the office of Vince Foster.

        MARGARET WILLIAMS, Chief of Staff to the First Lady

        (1) Obstructed justice when she removed documents from the office
        of Vince Foster.

        (2) Lied to Congress about removing those documents.

        Maggy Williams is under investigation by Independent Counsel.

        JOSHUA STEINER, Treasury Department Employee.

        (1) Lied to Congress about conversations with White House
        personnel about the RTC. (He also lied to his diary, but that is
        not a crime.)

        Joshua Steiner has resigned.

        LLOYD CUTLER, Former White House Counsel

        (1) Lied to Congress about the contents of redacted documents.

        (2) Attempted to withhold vital information from Congress, a

        (3) Obtained a confidential Treasury report and showed it to
        witnesses before they testified before Congress in the Whitewater
        in 1970. Has never been indicted for this crime which was similar to what the
        Watergate Plumbers spent time in jail for.

        BRUCE LINDSEY, Senior Advisor

        (1) As treasurer for the Clinton gubernatorial campaign in
        1990, he signed withdrawals from Peny County Bank, the president
        of which has pled guilty to conspiring to conceal these
        withdrawals from the IRS and FEC.

        Bruce Lindsey is an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the owners of Perry County Bank.

        MARIAN BENETT, USIA Inspector General

        (1) Covered up credit-card fraud by USIA Inspector General staff.

        FEDERICO PENA, Secretary of Transportation

        (1) State and federal contracts were awarded to companies in
        which he had a financial interest.

        The Justice Department found insufficient evidence to appoint
        a Special Counsel.

        HENRY CISNEROS, Secretary of HUD

        (1) Lied to the FBI about payments to former lover.
        Under investigation by Special Counsel.

        JANET RENO, Attorney General

        (1) Fabricated charges of child molestation against the Branch
        Davidians in Waco, Texas.

        (2) Ordered the use of military equipment against citizens of
        the United States

        (3) Ordered the use of chemical agents against citizens of the
        United States.

        ROBERT REICH, Secretary of Labor

        (1) Lied to Congress when he wrote that there were no memos
        circulating in the Labor Department instructing staffto gather
        political material against the Contract with America. Such memos
        were later published. Under investigation by Congress.

        DONNA SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services

        (1) As Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison
        instituted speech codes which were found to be unconstitutional
        in federal court. Instituted thought police star chamber proceed
        -ings to drive politically incorrect people off campus.

        CAROL BROWNER, EPA Administrator

        (1) Used the EPA to campaign against Republicans running on
        the Contract with America, an illegal use of the executive
        branch for political campaigning.

        Carol Browner is under investigation by Congress.

        ROBERTA ACHTENBERG, Former Assitant Secretary of HUD

        (1) Violated the First Amendment when she ordered HUD
        lawyers to silence citizens who spoke out against planned
        housing projects.

        (2) Exceeded her authority when she had HUD staff threaten
        Allentown County to withdraw an “Use of English language
        encouraged” ordinance.

        Roberta Achtenberg resigned to run for Mayor of San Francisco, a
        race which she lost.

        DEVAL PATRICK, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights

        (1) Used extortion to force banks to give preferential
        treatment to minorities.

        Congress is investigating the possibility of impeachment based on
        abuse of power.

        BRUCE BABBIT, Secretary of the Interior

        (1) Paid a penalty for violating campaign finance laws during his
        1988 presidential campaign.

        HAZEL O’LEARY, Energy Secretary

        (1) Abused taxpayer money for extravagant travels around the

        Hazel O’Leary is under investigation by Congress.

        WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense

        (1) Intervened in a Chinese trade deal on behalf of a business

        CRAIG LIVINGSTONE, Chief of White House Security

        (1) Was seen carrying a box from Foster’s office the morning
        after Vince Foster died.

        (2) Ordered confidential FBI background files on Hillary
        Clinton’s political enemies, a violation of the privacy act.

        Craig Livingstone is currently on paid leave and has been unable to
        pass FBI criminal background checks, and the White House has
        admitted that 11 unnamed White House staffers have had recent
        drug use. Unsubstantiated allegations of murder, treason,
        and conspiracy have been omitted from the above list.

        In light of this record, it is appropriate to mention those Clinton Cabinet Secretaries who are not under investigation and have never had criminal allegations raised against them:

        RICHARD RILEY, Secretary of Education
        WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State

      • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 11:22 am

        what the shadow cant handle a legitimate question?

        Your “legitimate question” is nothing more than more homophobic bigotry and is no more tolerable than other bigotry which is also deleted from this blog. This is why the following post is also deleted. // Moderator

      • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 11:38 am

        Deleted. This blog is not a forum for homophobic bigotry. // Moderator

      • neocon1 September 18, 2011 / 11:39 am

        Deleted. Do not try this again. // Moderator

      • Cory September 18, 2011 / 12:01 pm

        Yeah, because clearly David’s intent was to be able to compile a list of credentials for whatever politician that you want to use to change the subject.

        If we’re going to play the “show me the credentials” game, I want to pick somebody, too. Let’s go with Senator Ron Johnson. Please explain to me what credentials he had, and how they held even the slightest of candles to those of Russ Feingold, whose seat he took.

      • David September 18, 2011 / 8:45 pm

        I didn’t vote for Obama and have no liking for him. Thanks for assigning me beliefs without knowing anything about me.

      • neocon1 September 19, 2011 / 9:28 am


        so a record from the United States Senate. is homophobic bigotry?
        ill let them know that so they can remove it.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2011 / 9:06 pm


      Where is her executive experience? Where is her legislative experience? Heck, she’s a lawyer – where is her trial or appellate experience? What has she ever done – on her own just by her own merits – which makes you figure she’s a person who fits in to high office?

      Terribly sorry, but degrees from college and getting on to boards and commissions doesn’t impress me…”college education”, to me, means someone who knows Latin and Greek and can actually discourse on Aristotle and Aquinas…getting a law degree just shows you’ll sit there for a number of years and dutifully regurgitate what was fed in to you. I’d be impressed if she showed genuine intellectual heft…but she hasn’t. As she hasn’t done that, there are other ways she can impress me…be a good military officer, run a company successfully, have a long list of legislative accomplishment, successfully govern a city or State, spend months and years actually helping the poor…none of this, as far as I can see, has she done…she’s just hung around, got her ticket punched and rose high on the boot straps of others…

      • Bodie September 20, 2011 / 5:07 pm

        “college education”, to me, means someone who knows Latin and Greek and can actually discourse on Aristotle and Aquinas”

        This is a perfect example of how foolish and misguided you are about education. “Studying Greek–now that’s what education is all about!” That’s the sort of thing somebody should be embarrassed to say out loud.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 20, 2011 / 6:53 pm


        Buy why shouldn’t we learn Latin and Greek? Especially Greek…it is the language of liberty, is it not? Or are you unaware of where the word “democracy” comes from, and what it means? It seems to me that we stopped teaching Greek in colleges right about the time that various totalitarian ideologies took hold there…as if the new rulers of education preferred that people didn’t hear such words as dēmokratía and libertas.

        There was, for a short time in the early 20th century, a revival of Thomist philosophy…which not only opened up the massive intellectual accomplishment of St. Thomas, but also was a bridge to Aristotle, and had side roads to Plato. That was firmly squelched by mid-century…and I ask you, are we more reasonable now than then? Is, in fact, reason held in any sort of high regard these days. Or are we all scripted to be like the fictional character Luke Skywalker and “trust our feelings”?

        You should understand that education must be about training the character to good behavior and training the mind to think…if it doesn’t do that it is either a waste of time, or merely acquiring a useful skill…not at all a put down to doctors, engineers and physicists…but they are, in a very real sense, glorified mechanics, no different in kind from the man who fixes your plumbing or tunes up your engine. Extraordinarily useful skills, to be sure…and skills we need much more of in this day and age where all technical skill is waning. But that is not education, unless it is matched with other knowledge. Part of the reason that Theology and Science can’t speak to each other is because those who study science don’t study theology, and thus are not taught to think…

        I would have us issue fewer college degrees but have those who obtain them much better educated…educated to the point where they really could constitute an intellectual elite; a reservoir of reason we, the people, could tap in to for the reform and development of our whole society. But all we’ve got are half educated people…but half educated people who have been told they are fully educated, and thus arrogant in their ignorance . Much better can be done, and I hope we’ll start doing it ere long.

      • Bodie September 20, 2011 / 8:36 pm

        “Buy why shouldn’t we learn Latin and Greek?”

        Oh, you can if you want to–that’s why there are classes in Latin and Greek. But your insistence that learning Latin and Greek is the foundation of education while studying things like law is useless (to say nothing of your repeated insistence that learning theology is the only way to learn to think–funny, that, when theology is rigid dogma, not thought) is utterly absurd.

        “Is, in fact, reason held in any sort of high regard these days.”

        Not by you, no. You clearly seek to redefine what “reason” is. Reason is reason, Mark; it’s not fealty to your religious doctrine (which is, in fact, pretty unreasonable in many ways). But plenty of us do hold reason in very high regard, and we are alternately amused and saddened by your attempts to tear down reason in the name of your religion.

        This does dovetail nicely with your bewilderment at how anybody could consider you anti-education. You think education is learning Plato and the Bible; it is, in fact, much, much more than that no matter how hard you labor to restrict it to those things. You think intellectual subservience to religious dogma is education; little more need be said about your hostility to actual learning. That hostility does make sense, though: Actual learning, actual education runs the risk of leading people to think for themselves instead of blindly obeying dogma as you do.

      • Bodie September 21, 2011 / 10:56 am

        “an intellectual elite; a reservoir of reason we, the people, could tap in to for the reform and development of our whole society”

        This statement deserves to be flagged. For al your rage against “the elites” and how they are “trying to make over the country” and all that, you actually want elites making over the country…you just want them to share your beliefs.

        Also, can these theologically-trained elites be Hindu theologians? Shinto theologians? The dreaded Muslim theologians? Or would they need not apply?

    • Bodie September 20, 2011 / 5:10 pm

      “Other than military experience, she has all the experience you claim she doesn’t have, and it was listed in my first post. It’s pretty clear to me at this point that you have no interest in being engaged intellectually.”

      You’re looking for depth that simply isn’t there. Mark is “unimpressed” with her because she’s a Democrat. That’s it. That’s the entire story. Give that same record to a Republican, and he’d tout it as evidence of intelligence, drive, accomplishment, etc. But because it belongs to a Democrat, he doesn’t like it. There is no other dynamic at play here.

  3. Green Mountain Boy September 18, 2011 / 2:29 pm

    If our founding fathers had intended for candidates for office to have credentials they would have codified them in the constitution. No creditial can ever tell how or what a person may do in office. If you want creditialed candidates what you are in effect doing is self imposing a form of feudal monarchy on yourself.

    Have fun with that.

    Vinnie the cab driver for president. Kristiana the homemaker for vice president. It is my opinion if those two are elected this country would be much better off.

    Now if I could only get them to run for office.

  4. Amazona September 18, 2011 / 2:58 pm

    And guess what? All of a sudden we’re not talking about media bias any more! Kinda cool how that works, ain’t it?

    Mark brings up a topic which, because of its importance and relevance and incontrovertible truth is not what the Left wants discussed, and all of a sudden the trolls are trying to talk about an ex-Senator and qualifications for office.

    But the real issue, and one that is having a majorly negative impact on our nation, is the near-absence of actual journalism in the U.S. We now have a Complicit Agenda Media, which uses its disguise as journalism to act as a propaganda arm for the radical Left.

    The point was not Bill or Hillary, John F’n Kerry or Algore or even Barry—the point is that none of these Lefty icons were properly vetted by our “journalists” who not only refused to make any effort to pin them down on matters of import, they actively covered for them and helped them hide their true agendas.

    What are popularly called the Mainsteam Media have become nothing but shills for a political system and attack dogs for its opposition. It is one of the great shames of this great country, that we no longer have an actual free press, and that we allow this to continue.

    • Green Mountain Boy September 18, 2011 / 3:30 pm

      What Mark wrote about this subject is all true. Now what does anyone plan to do about it. If you are looking for vaidation of your beliefs from the msm it’s going to be a long wait. You know what the msm is and what it does. This blog is free press. This blog exists because of the msm.
      This blog and others like it are the answer to the msm. This and other alternative media sites are freedom. ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC,CNN, I have not watched this networks in ages. Why are you?

      • Amazona September 18, 2011 / 8:16 pm

        I watch one network news show, sometimes, because I have a friend who does on-air news there. I check into local news shows. That’s it. If I want fiction, I can find better fiction pretty much anywhere than in what is so laughably called “news” in this country.

        I’ve been brutally critical of what I have dubbed the Complicit Agenda Media for years now, from the “news” people to the whiny proponents of “soft news” like Sawyer and Couric. It’s propaganda, it’s yellow journalism, and it is damaging our nation.

    • cory September 18, 2011 / 3:55 pm

      I’m confused. Does Fox News (the biggest cable news organization) not count as mainstream media? What do we even have from leftists to balance that? MSNBC? Certainly not CNN, which is a terrible sensationalist news organization but really isn’t clever enough to have an actual bias.

      Newspapers tend liberal, but it isn’t like there still aren’t Wall Street Journal and Washington Posts out there. And it is not nearly as lopsided as talk radio is in the conservative direction.

      I bring up other, more underqualified Republican senators specifically because I’ve never heard a piece about how they don’t really have anything to recommend them besides a proposed package of political stances, either.

      You either need to demonstrate that conservative politicians get rougher treatment from some news organizations than liberals do from Fox News, or you need to provide explanations for why they don’t deserve as harsh of treatment.

      Since I’m sure you can’t do the former, I’ll continue waiting on you for the latter. Why did Hillary deserve to be called out more on her credentials when she was running for Senate and Ron Johnson did not?

  5. Bodie September 18, 2011 / 5:19 pm

    You don’t want the media to actually do its job, Mark. If it did, then Republicans would be summarily dismissed as liars, cranks, and idiots who always seem to end up on the wrong side of the facts. But the media doesn’t do its job–and it’s to your benefit.

    But keep crying, though.

    • Amazona September 18, 2011 / 8:08 pm

      Bodie, does your snarl mean you are finally ready to actually discuss FACTS? Because it is you and your kind who steadfastly duck and dodge any effort to bring reality into a discussion.

      Let’s start with the fact about which political system, in the 20th Century, led to economic prosperity, individual freedom, national strength and security, and the position of being a beacon of freedom and opportunity for people all over the world. Then you can lay out the facts bout YOUR system, that of the Left, and its own record of liberty, progress, and opportunity.

      Go ahead and start with your own system first, if it will make you feel better. I’m betting you won’t be willing to engage in this kind of factual discussion. At least you never have been.

      You and your kind can continue to focus on Identity Politics and the silly belief that politics is about who did what and who got caught and whether what they got caught at was really bad, etc. Of course you have to focus on this. Partly because it is as far as you can or will go, regarding understanding where you stand and why, and partly because this kind of distraction to the frivolous and inconsequential is essential to your political system.

      But gee, Bodie, now all of a sudden you say it is the Right who want to avoid facts, which does kind of sound like you’d really rather have a conversation based on facts, doesn’t it?

      So go for it. Tell us the FACTS about the political system you support and enable, through your snarling attacks on its opposition, and we’ll have us a real nice FACTUAL discussion, ‘K?

      • David September 18, 2011 / 8:28 pm

        You understand that there’s a difference between facts and assertions, right? You just state things and act like you’re doing us all a favor by smothering us in truth, but there’s no evidence provided by your post for anything you assert.

        “Let’s start with the fact about which political system, in the 20th Century, led to economic prosperity, individual freedom, national strength and security, and the position of being a beacon of freedom and opportunity for people all over the world.”

        OK, I’m game. I’ll start things off with this:

        It’s a study from Princeton University that shows that Americans of pretty much all classes make more money under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. I guess the political system you’re talking about is that perpetuated by the Democratic Party. I’m glad we’re in agreement.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2011 / 9:09 pm


        Its a study from an ivory tower professor of clear ideological bent…it is a Kerry Campaign document from 2004, nothing more…there is massive liberal bias in our universities, as well.

      • David September 18, 2011 / 11:57 pm

        Since you attack him and nothing in his study I’ll assume you agree with the conclusions.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 12:28 pm

        David, thank you for your illustration of political ignorance.

        I asked for an analysis of which political system is best for the governance of the country. And you came up with a “study” regarding income.

        No, David. This is NOT the definition of politics.

        I suggest that you actually do some research of your own. Learn what our Constitution says, and why it was written the way it was. Learn about the thinking behind the wording and the intent of the Founding Fathers, and take some time to evaluate this information and decide what parts of you agree with, and where you disagree—and why.

        It’s like an open-book test, and no one has to know what you think, but if you don’t do this you really are ignorant of American politics and are not making your own decisions about how to run the country.

        Then do the same with the Leftist system. Read Marx, because no matter how the current Left in this country tries to distance itself from Marxism, once you understand what Marx wrote you can see the relationship between now and then. Evaluate the writings of Marx and Lenin and do what you did with the Constitution—decide what you agree with and what you don’t, and why.

        THEN take a look at countries which have followed each of these two systems. Evaluate the relative economic progress, the scientific progress, the industrial progress, and most importantly the relative quality of life present in nations governed by our Constitutional rule vs. those under Leftist governance. By “quality of life” I mean personal liberty in all its forms—–freedom of choice regarding what to do for a living, where to live, what to buy, etc.

        Only when you have this information at hand, fully understood, and have developed YOUR OWN beliefs about the two opposing political systems, will you be ready to make actual political choices of how you want the USA of the next few decades governed.

        Hey, you might be one of those guys who buys a car because it’s a pretty color and the TV spokeswoman is hot. But you will be arguing against people who did their research into past performance, reliability, cost of maintenance, etc. It’s the same principal but applied to something a lot more important than what you drive.

        BTW, smirkiness is not a very attractive quality, no matter how much blog trolls depend on it in lieu of actual political content.

      • David September 19, 2011 / 2:22 pm

        Thanks for the candid advice. I’ll see what I can do to implement your ideas.

        In the meantime, I invite you to provide some facts backed up by evidence to support your stance, rather than baselessly dismissing the study and attacking me personally.

        Regarding the car analogy, I actually drive a very safe and reliable car that only cost $2500 (that’s 2.5k not 25k). Admittedly, it is Swedish, so there could be a hot spokeswoman lurking somewhere…

        I’m sorry my “smirkiness” turned you off. I thought our budding relationship had such promise…

    • Amazona September 18, 2011 / 8:12 pm

      Oh, BTW, Bodie, since we are on a FACT mission here—-it’s “media DON’T do THEIR job”.

      Medium—-singular. Print medium, for example.
      Media—–plural. In this context, comprising the various information media out there, such as newspapers, TV and radio.

      If you are going to strut around with a Mr. Facts hat, you might start with accurate language. ‘K?

      • David September 18, 2011 / 8:19 pm

        Collectives in American English are singular. “The media” is colloquially used to mean the collective of media enterprises in the US, so treating it as singular is not unreasonable.

      • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 11:01 am

        Ouch. Way to embarrass yourself, Amazona. You might want to brush up on grammar; perhaps tiredoflibbs can recommend a tutor for you.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 12:40 pm

        David/Bodie—wrong. I know how you types like to just reinvent rules, definitions, etc. and how dependent you are on “consensus” but you are wrong.

        Some collective nouns are treated as a singular. “Army” for example. There are abundant examples of such. But “media” is not a word that qualifies as a singular. It means more than one medium. And who made the new ‘rule’ you quote that limits the definition of the word to “…the collective of media enterprises in the US “?

        Is this just another example of the Left’s passion for collective EVERYTHING?

        It is used as a singular because our educational system has not produced graduates who understand that the word is a plural. We are turning out people just like you who don’t know, and furthermore just don’t care. How many people know that the word “data” is a plural, for “datum”?

        “Colloquial” is not the same as “correct”. In this case, it appears to mean “consensus of the uniformed who are too lazy to find out the correct usage”. And we all know how important “consensus” is to you types.

        And BTW, “not unreasonable” does not mean “correct”. No matter how many votes it may get.

      • Bodie September 20, 2011 / 5:03 pm

        “Is this just another example of the Left’s passion for collective EVERYTHING?”

        There ya go, Amazona. Lapse into conspiracy theorizing to cover up for your error. “Collective nouns are SOCIALIST!”

        Look, you flubbed a bit of basic grammar in a misguided attempt to criticize my (correct) grammar. Just get over it; it’s really not a big deal, though it is amusing.

    • tiredoflibbs September 19, 2011 / 5:21 am

      Jeffy states the obvious without realizing it:

      “You don’t want the media to actually do its job, Mark. If it did, then Republicans would be summarily dismissed as liars, cranks, and idiots who always seem to end up on the wrong side of the facts.”

      They already are summarized that way in the MSM.

      Thanks for proving Mark’s point!

      You finally got something right (without realizing it of course)!

      “But the media doesn’t do its job.”

      Yet again!

      But do keep up with the “just because you don’t agree with what they say” talking point theme that you so readily mindlessly regurgitate.

      Thanks for playing, as usual you bring silly humor and non-sequitors to the topic.

      • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 11:02 am

        No, I’m quite aware that I stated the obvious; I’m also quite aware that you didn’t get it, as obvious things are still too complicated for you. But I’m not going to beat you up about it like I usually do, as I have decided it’s a little too cruel to do that to somebody who simply lacks the ability to defend himself.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 12:42 pm

        Bodie, is there an actual comment in there, or are you just still clinging to the belief that this blog is nothing more than a litter box for your insults?

      • Tiredoflibbs September 19, 2011 / 9:01 pm

        “But I’m not going to beat you up about it like I usually do….”

        Ahhhh, hitting the bong a little harder today there jeffy?

        Only in your delusional drug induced mind could you actually believe that.

        You have yet to beat up anyone other than yourself with your silly little rantings and delusional conclusions.

        thanks for playing…..

      • Bodie September 20, 2011 / 11:05 am

        “Only in your delusional drug induced mind could you actually believe that.”

        Only in my mind could I believe it? Brilliant. Where else could I believe it–my liver? My femur? Maybe I believe it in my lymph nodes!

        Gah. OK. This is going to get into me stomping you for the umpteenth time, and like I said, I’ve decided it’s cruel for me to do that to somebody like you who lacks any ability whatsoever to defend himself. I will, however, suggest that you get your English tutor to teach you about proper comma usage. But that’s an advanced lesson–learn the words “everything,” “may,” “vote,” and “prove” first.

  6. Green Mountain Boy September 18, 2011 / 6:07 pm

    The msm found Rick Perrys college transcripts merely hours after his annoncement that he was running for president. The msm still can’t find any interest to go look for Obama’s. There are other exemples but there is no point to it.

    • Amazona September 18, 2011 / 7:57 pm

      Exactly, GMB. Cory is full of it, if by “full” you mean completely lacking in awareness or ideas. Let’s just look at Presidential candidates to start with.

      George W. Bush had his grades at Yale and Harvard dug up, examined, and critiqued, and furthermore was labeled an idiot by the MSM while having better grades than his opponent, Kerry. Kerry was never called out for his lying, UNDER OATH, to the United States Congress when he smeared the U.S. military, and was certainly never examined regarding his military record. On the contrary, the oddity of serving only 3 months in a war zone and collecting 3 medals while never actually showing much of a wound was simply ignored, as were the repeated testimonies of men with whom he served who disputed Kerry’s accounts of his “heroism”.

      How was Bush treated? Well, a national network published a vicious and vile lie about Bush and lied about its origins and its provenance, even after being told by experts that it could not be verified. One of the leading lights of network news defended his presentation of forged documents because he claimed they were “fake but accurate”.

      Bush was supposed to account for every minute of his life from his freshman year of college on. His successor, Barack Obama, never had to account for any period of time in his life. No grades, no transcripts, no girlfriends, no classmates—no history. When a Texas Air National Guard pilot said he did not remember seeing Bush during Bush’s term of duty, this was trumpeted by the Complicit Agenda Media as “proof” Bush was AWOL, in spite of the simple fact that pilots only served a weekend a month and therefore many did not see fellow pilots because they were on different rotations. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, none of them pointed this out or defended Bush’s record, but all ran repeated stories about his alleged shortcomings during his military career.

      So a pilot who was on a different rotation than Bush stated that he never saw Bush on duty, and this was news, but the fact that no one can remember seeing Obama in his entire college career at Columbia, not even people who took classes he would supposedly have taken, doesn’t rate even ONE “investigative journalist” inquiry.

      John McCain was born to a military family on duty outside the country and the Complicit Agenda Media went with the story that this made him ineligible to be President, yet any question about why Obama refused to provide a birth certificate was written off as insane fringe lunatic territory. The COLB eventually presented had an inherent defect in that it was a document of dual nature, one of which could possibly be to prove Obama’s birth in Hawaii and one that would prove the exact opposite. Remember any CAM coverage of that simple fact?

      Obama was elected to two offices, both with considerable help from a massive political machine, in elections that reeked of manipulation and skullduggery. He only made into the Illinois Senate because the machine got every one of his opponents removed from the ballot, and into the U.S. Senate because the machine got into supposedly sealed personal court records regarding a child custody issue and smeared his opponent with this allegedly confidential yet embarrassing information. He never really held a job, being handed token positions as a guest lecturer at Harvard and flunky at a law firm, and then was only a community activist. He never hired or fired anyone, was responsible for a profit, had to make a decision which would impact a real business, created a job, created a product or had any serious business experience. Even in his elected positions he avoided making decisions, voting “present” rather than taking a stand. How much scrutiny did his experience receive from the so-called MSM?

      Sarah Palin put herself through college, working to pay her own way, worked in real-life business, helped her husband run a business, created jobs, was responsible for the bottom line, was elected not only on her own but running AGAINST the political machine in her state, ran and won two very difficult elections, proved herself to be a competent governor and negotiator—and was savaged by the same “journalists” for her “LACK OF EXPERIENCE”.

      Bias? Nah, how could it be?

      And so on. Bernie Goldberg wrote an entire book about it, and that was before the lovefest between the Complicit Agenda Media and Obama. The last three years would fill another volume or two.

      And claiming that one single cable network balances out all the other cable networks plus the public networks of NBS, CBS, and ABC is simply ludicrous. No, Cory, it goes beyond that, as there is no way to believe you actually BELIEVE this. So it is a lie.

      And we’re not even talking about the print media, which of course has to include stellar Liberal mouthpieces such as Time, Newsweek, and even Vanity Fair, as well as most newspapers. Cartoons? Picturing Condoleeza Rice as a grotesque Aunt Jemima was quite accepted by the Left, but objecting to a POLICY of Barack Obama was and is called “racist” by most in the media.

      How about what would seem like an obvious question for a real journalist to ask—the journey of Barack Obama to Pakistan when he was 21. This was certainly odd enough to create curiosity in a normal journalist, yet it never rose to the level of interest that would prompt any questions in our own Complicit Agenda Media. How long was he there? How did he get there when Americans were not allowed in Pakistan? What nation’s passport did he use? But these kinds of questions were deemed, evidently, of far less importance than speculation about the birth mother of a Down Syndrome child.

      It is bad enough when you people try to defend policies and so on, but when you come up with such utter crap as your post and posture as one who actually BELIEVES there is no Left-leaning media bias, you just place yourself firmly in the company of such as David, who states that Obama is more conservative than most Democrats. That is, well beyond reality or belief and decidedly in either shill or dupe territory.

      • David September 18, 2011 / 8:41 pm

        I’m not sure what “shill or dupe territory” means. Since my statement is “well beyond reality or belief,” I’m sure you could point to some of Obama’s left-leaning actions and compare them to mainstream Democrats.

        Since I’m a nice guy, I’ll base my claim on some facts.

        1) Obama has continued and expanded the extraordinary rendition program of the Bush Administration, which takes people, and sends them to “black sites” in other countries where torture is legal so that they can be interrogated with “enhanced techniques.” This is extremely unpopular with Democrats.

        2) Obama has time and again expressed support for deficit reduction at a time when all of the liberal economists are screaming that this is not the time to focus on the deficit.

        3) The Obama Justice Department has ratcheted up prosecution of whistleblowers and activists to levels beyond what the Bush Administration did. In particular, the case of Tim DeChristopher who faces 10 years in prison for participating in a land auction that the Bush Administration allowed to go forward despite serious legal concerns. Keeping Bradley Manning in solitary confinement with no clothes for 23 hours a day and punishing him for trying to exercise in his cell. Just a reminder, he’s innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and his crime was non-violent.

        4) Obama is not going to close Guantanamo or hold trials for the detainees in Federal Court despite pleas from his party to do so.

        Now, I’ve provided four examples that support my stance. Is it still “well beyond reality or belief?”

      • Cory September 18, 2011 / 9:01 pm

        Here’s a tip: just because the media spends less time than you’d like on the outlandish conspiracy theories you favor (less time and not no time. I was sick and tired of hearing stories, as reported by the mainstream media, which again includes Fox, about Obama’s dubious history outside of this country and his “fake” birth certificate) doesn’t mean that they are left leaning. It just means that even they can’t stomach the crazy gibberings you are presenting. And that’s amazing, because on average, they are sensationalist garbage. For every George W. Bush Air Force story they ran, there was a John Kerry didn’t deserve his Vietnam medals story run.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2011 / 9:18 pm


        According to the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs 62% of Kerry stories in the ABC/NBC/CBS part of the MSM were positive, while 59% of the stories about Bush in the same sources were negative. According to the Pew’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, 36% of stories about Obama were positive while only 14% of McCain stories were positive. 39% of Palin stories were negative while Biden was hardly covered, at all.

        The liberal bias in the MSM is a long-known fact…to try and deny it or say that it merely is an unwillingness of the MSM to cover “kook right” stories is absurd.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2011 / 10:55 pm

        Yes, Mark, but referring to studies with no context is also absurd. I looked up the Pew study about the 2008 campaign. Among other things, it says:

        “Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most political—the ones focused on polling, the electoral map, and tactics.” Gee, positive news items because he was ahead in the polls. How dare the media report that!

        “For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain’s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama’s character did hurt Obama’s media coverage, but McCain’s was even more negative.” Again, what a surprise. McCain’s attempts to attack Obama personally, and his pathetic attempts to deal with the economic crisis, created negative news about him. Again, what a surprise.

        “Coverage of Palin, in the end, was more negative than positive. In all, 39% of Palin stories carried a negative tone, while 28% were positive, and 33% were neutral. Contrary to what some suggested, little of the coverage was about Palin’s personal life (5%).” Do you think the coverage turned negative because she couldn’t answer simple questions, like what do you read?

        Meanwhile, talk radio was almost 100% negative regarding Obama.

        It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

      • watsonredux September 18, 2011 / 11:01 pm

        And then there’s this little tidbit from Pew’s study of Obama first 100 days. “NPR and PBS offered the highest percentage of neutral stories of any outlets studied.”

        Yeah, that nasty, liberal NPR turns out to be more unbiased than anyone.

      • Cory September 19, 2011 / 12:00 am

        You might take the time to read more of the studies from the CMPA, as well. What you’d find is that the media (Fox News and NBC excepted) largely follow trends based on big turns of events, positive or negative. The coverage of the 2004 election, for instance, started more positive for Kerry until he got tagged as a flip-flopper and had people question his service in Vietnam, at which point Bush got more favorable coverage until the presidential debates, at which point the edge went back to Kerry.

        If you go back to 2000, you’ll find that positive coverage was almost entirely balanced between Bush and Gore on the networks (Fox isn’t examined that year, but it the data correlates to the later studies of Fox News, overall coverage would tip in Bush’s favor.)

        You can see vast left-wing conspiracy, but the reality of the 2008 race was that McCain tried many desperate gambits to try to close gaps in the polls, and many of them (Palin included) backfired. This led to negative coverage and probably a wider gap at the polls than there would have been otherwise, but it doesn’t not amount to coverage being in any way unfair.

        It’s also worth noting that the CMPA probably leans mildly to the right (despite being self-described as non-partisan). It probably isn’t deliberately being used as a conservative mouthpiece, but donor money and leadership are heavily provided by conservatives, and it would be surprising if their opinions on whether a specific piece of coverage counts as positive or negative weren’t at least unintentionally informed by their conservative roots.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 19, 2011 / 12:04 am


        Its a nice try, but the fact remains that the coverage of Republicans is routinely far more negative than the coverage of Democrats. When was the last time you saw a major series of MSM reports on the homeless? Had them endlessly 1981 until 1993 and then nothing until 2001…and then back again to magically disappear in 2009. On and on it goes like that.

      • Cory September 19, 2011 / 1:13 am


        Its a nice try, but the fact remains that your own source doesn’t support what you are saying, and just repeating it over and over won’t make it true.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 19, 2011 / 1:21 am


        My review of the facts comes to a different conclusion..the correct one, as it turns out, and the one asserted by the reports in question. You can try and dress it up and live in a world of make-believe…but I prefer the real world. The sky is blue, you say it isn’t…where am I supposed to go with the argument?

      • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 11:06 am

        “Mark, that’s a sad response. When confronted with facts about your own references, you fallback on tired, unsubstantiated cliches.”

        That’s just Mark’s way of admitting defeat.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 8:38 pm

        David, you have listed some actions of Obama that you evidently do not find consistent with your definition of Liberalism, but do find consistent with your concept of conservatism.

        Once again, I assert here that the basics of politics deal with the choice of system by which to govern the country, not on isolated incidents or actions.

        1.) I think Obama has taken some of his actions because, once he found himself in the Oval Office, and privy to the same information that prompted Bush’s decisions, he realized that he had no choice but to continue those policies because they were, and are, the only reasonable decisions to be made.

        I think the objections are primarily emotional and unrelated to the hard cold facts, which you do not know. I suggest that if you had the same responsibilities and the same body of knowledge you would see things differently than you do now.

        2.) You may take Obama at face value when he makes these statements, or you may believe, as so many do, that he is trying to posture as a centrist for the sole purpose of gaining support from the Independent and Moderate voting blocs.

        3.) Suppression of dissent is a hallmark of Leftist politics and nothing could be more Leftist than suppression, even brutal suppression, of dissenting views or actions that might interfere with Leftist agendas.

        4.) See # 1.

        I suggest that you develop a less tunnel-vision viewpoint of Left and Right, and move beyond the superficial to the real nuts and bolts of each political model, and see if you still find Obama to be “more conservative than most Democrats”. I also suggest that you are probably far more representative of the far Left than are “most Democrats” as large numbers of old-style traditional Democrats are quite concerned about the radicalization of the party and its violent swerve to the far Left. I think what you are really saying is that Obama is not as far to the Left as you would like him to be, at least from what you have seen in his first term in office, but to call his actions “conservative” shows a real lack of knowledge about what “conservative” is, in contemporary politics.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 8:46 pm

        Cory, take a breath and calm down, OK?

        I did not take a position on the things I mentioned. I merely pointed out that in a completely unbiased journalistic environment they would have been seen as being of interest, and would have been looked into. As it was, it appeared that if something might hinder the progress of a Democrat, it was shoved under the rug.

        I never said a word about a “fake” birth certificate, and the comment on the laws at the time Obama turned 21 merely stated that no one ever bothered to look into the process by which he renounced his other citizenships, if he did. Or if that would matter. He DID go to Pakistan when he was 21, and if you find that claim “dubious” you might write to him and suggest he remove it from his autobiography. It is not a conspiracy theory to wonder how he did this when Americans were not welcome there. Your knee-jerk overreaction to what I said, and to a lot I didn’t, only illustrates the panic that arose every single time anything popped up the radar that would have elicited some journalistic curiosity if it related to someone else.

        I take strong exception to your claim that “For every George W. Bush Air Force story they ran, there was a John Kerry didn’t deserve his Vietnam medals story run.” These alleged Kerry stories certainly did not run on network news, or CNN, or MSNBC. I’ll be happy to look at any MSM stories you can link.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 9:14 pm

        David, if you are going to have any credibility here you are going to have to work on being more honest.l

        For example, you say “In particular, the case of Tim DeChristopher who faces 10 years in prison for participating in a land auction that the Bush Administration allowed to go forward despite serious legal concerns. ” Aww, it sounds like all poor Tim did was “participate” and of course the clincher is that the Bush administration allowed it to go forward.

        Let’s just look at the facts, shall we? Who exactly had these “serious legal concerns” and who decided they were “serious” much less “legal”? And let’s define “participating”, shall we?

        Mr. DeChristopher, who in 2008 was an undergraduate economics student at the University of Utah here in Salt Lake City, freely admitted putting in bids, and then actually winning more than a dozen oil and gas leases before being pulled out of the room by suspicious auction officials.

        The debate within the trial, which had been repeatedly delayed, was over the question of Mr. DeChristopher’s intent, and, out of the jury’s presence, his motive. Judge Dee Benson strictly limited how much the defense could say about federal energy policies and climate change, which Mr. DeChristopher has said in numerous interviews were his primary motivations in going to the auction.

        Mr. DeChristopher repeatedly said his specific hope was that by delaying the auction, the leases could be reconsidered by the Obama administration, which was then just about to take office.

        But the jury, beyond a few cryptic references during the trial, was told only that Mr. DeChristopher had strong environmental beliefs.
        In an interview last week, Mr. DeChristopher predicted a short trial and conviction because of the limits put on what he could say in his defense. He said prosecutors offered a reduced sentence last summer in exchange for pleading guilty to one of the two counts in the indictment.

        “I wasn’t interested,” he said.

        He added: “Their goal is to make an example out of me. It intimidates others into following the rules.”

        Mr. DeChristopher faces up to five years on each of the two counts — disrupting a federal auction and making false statements on federal forms to enter the auction — and up to $750,000 in total fines. Sentencing was set for June 23. ”

        So what really happened was that this man broke the law, was found guilty on two counts, disrupted a legal and legitimate auction, George Bush’s administration approval of the auction having nothing to do with anything other than an excuse to drag George Bush’s name into a Lefty rant, and refused a chance to get out of prison because he wanted to make a point. Another point.

        Not quite the same as simply “participating” is it?

        What actually happened here, on this blog, is that you lied when you said he “.. faces 10 years in prison for participating in a land auction ,,,” No, he faces 10 years in prison for first breaking the law and then deciding to become a martyr to feed his ego.

        No wonder you people have no credibility here.

      • David September 19, 2011 / 9:18 pm

        “Cory, take a breath and calm down, OK?” … O.o


        You’re right, I probably could broaden my knowledge of politics as you suggest. That doesn’t change the fact that you attacked me personally and have provided no evidence for the claim still.

      • Amazona September 20, 2011 / 11:43 am

        David, you appear to be saying that the end justifies the means.

        The author of the highly biased piece you linked to inserted many of his own prejudices into the article, which you have apparently taken at face value. For example, he describes the lease auction as a sneaky tactic of the Bush administration to do an end run around environmental concerns to reward his oil and gas cronies—-a premise which makes the rest of the article quite predictable.

        And you quote the opinion of this extremely biased author, who is known as an activist, that the leases were not “legal”, as fact. Really? To what extent and in what way were they not “LEGAL”? Perhaps they had not all gone through the environmental approvals some activists deem necessary, but that does not make them ILLEGAL.

        Michaelson used a legal term to describe an opinion, and to imply illegal actions on the part of the Bush Administration, when in fact there was no crime committed by auctioning off the leases. What happens when a lease is sold and then it is learned that it still requires additional environmental study? There is no crime involved in this, and no, the lease is not “illegal”—–it is simply not allowed to move forward into drilling until the final stages are accomplished.

        Ever buy a house that’s under construction? You don’t get to move in till the house has received its Certificate of Occupancy, but you can still buy it—-and you do so fully understanding that you don’t get to live in it yet.

        You are clearly not only ignorant of the oil and gas industry but quite hostile to it, so you may now know—or care—-that this is a business which depends quite heavily on advance planning. There is nothing shady or ILLEGAL about buying a lease which has not fully passed environmental approval. It is just a part of advance planning, so the company can foresee where it will be operating in the future. It is understood that no drilling can take place till the other concerns are addressed.

        It is activists who twist things around to try to imply illegality where none exists. Sure you would love to make it all ILLEGAL but simply tossing the word around to smear actions which are not illegal is dishonest.

        Which brings us back to Tim, who DID commit crimes. He lied, he filed false federal papers saying he was a qualified bidder, and he purposely, according to his own testimony, acted to disrupt a legitimate business activity. And then he decided to stay in jail, so people like you could get all emotional about him being incarcerated for his crimes. (That emotional manipulation tactic seems to be working pretty well with you, doesn’t it?)

        But thank you for your lesson on the Moral Relativity of the Left and its belief that anything it does is justified, even when it involves breaking the law, if you can believe it furthers an agenda.

  7. Amazona September 19, 2011 / 1:10 pm

    The media report (some) poll information—hardly proof of lack of bias.

    I go back to the so-called “investigative journalism” aspect of media coverage. When it comes to Liberal politicians, there is little to none. What kind of journalistic investigation was done regarding Pelosi’s various manipulations of the law to enrich her husband’s businesses? What kind of journalistic investigation was conducted regarding the various Obama mysteries I mentioned?

    What kind of “journalistic investigation” has taken place regarding the manipulation of information about “the poor”? When an author was on CNN recently discussing this manipulation, his entire interview was cut to the simple statement that he did not agree with the data. Not one single fact he had used to arrive at this conclusion was presented.

    What “journalistic investigation” has revealed the massive overrun of spending on the so-called “War on Poverty” over the past 50 years or so, and its miserable failure in doing a single thing to eliminate or even reduce poverty, at least when it is defined as it is today. That whole topic, from LBJ to now, would be a fascinating study, yet it is avoided because of the Left’s need to create and maintain a dependent society. Why wouldn’t/shouldn’t the American Public be exposed to a serous analysis of whether or not the welfare state reduces poverty? Isn’t this something pretty darned relevant to the future of our country?

    What do we know about our current President? Do we know how he got into Occidental, or Columbia, or Harvard? Do we know what his grades were in those schools? Do we know what he wrote/published? Do we know what his fellow students and/or teachers thought of him? Do we know how he paid for these schools? Why haven’t our “journalists” asked questions?

    The whole issue of citizenship has been reduced by a complicit agenda media to nothing more than a few fringe lunatics refusing to accept a COLB, when in fact it is far more complex than that. We have a man who was born with multiple citizenships, who was registered in at least one school as a citizen of another country, who may have traveled on a passport from another country, who is subject to legitimate discussion of how 200 years of various court actions regarding the definition of “natural born citizen” might or might not apply to him, and the media are deaf, dumb and blind. Couldn’t care less. They can spend countless hours covering every aspect, real or imagined, regarding Casey Anthony and her involvement in her daughter’s death, but not one hour covering the eligibility questions surrounding the President of the United States. Every one of these questions might have a simple and legitimate answer, but they are never asked.

    The media gave a lot of attention to the fact that McCain was married to a woman he dated while married to another woman, which evidently defined legitimate political coverage, yet not one major media outlet followed up on Obama’s comment that “when the wealth is spread around everyone benefits”. Hmmm. A trumped-up non-political scandal on one side, and a real comment about real political motives and beliefs on another, yet look at what got the media attention.

    It goes on and on, but to the Bodies and watsons who either work very hard to focus on trivialities and insults or who don’t know enough to do anything else, the reality is just not significant.

    I wonder if they have ever checked to compare the media usage of two political terms, “neocon” and “Liberal” over the past 10 years or so. That is just a tiny tiny element of the bias argument.

    And the problem is much much worse now than it was even a decade ago, so bleating that Bush and Gore were pretty much equal in their press treatment is not very relevant.

    • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 1:18 pm

      “work very hard to focus on trivialities”

      Says the woman who still can’t let birtherism go. But to be fair, she doesn’t work all that hard to focus on such trivialities–it comes naturally to her.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 1:30 pm

        Says the insult machine who can’t even define his own terms. “Birtherism”. Just what IS that?

        I was careful to list questions that had never been asked, and never once, not ever, questioned the birth place of Barack Obama.

        So “birtherism” is another of those vague, amorphous, meaningless terms that Bodie and his ilk try to use as insults, being so insult-dependent as they are, without actually having a meaning for the word.

        Yet it is possible, and relevant, and even prudent to state that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and still note the lack of attention paid to the simple and undeniable fact that a COLB, in and of itself, can prove either of two contradictory things. It can consist of information taken from an actual birth certificate, proving Hawaiian birth, or it can be a document created specifically for people BORN OUT OF THE STATE. Wondering why the media steadfastly refused to address this oddity is hardly the same as questioning the place of a man’s birth.

        Unless, of course, you are a pathologically twisted creature who ignores the obvious in pursuit of yet another mindless insult, as we know Bodie/jeffy to be.

        Children born with more than one citizenship are expected to declare, at the age of 21, if they choose to retain their American citizenship and reject the others. Or they were when the US did not recognize dual or multiple citizenships. What does this have to do with the birthplace of anyone? Nothing. But Bodie does so love the flavor of this meaningless word he somehow believes is an insult, he just has to regurgitate it for yet another taste.

        And, of course, his desperate need to insult, however mindlessly, does nothing to disguise the fact that he simply cannot refute a single thing I said. This is what the Bodie/jeffys do—they don’t have facts on their side, but that never matters, as all they care about is showing off their bottomless supply of nasty.

      • Bodie September 19, 2011 / 3:45 pm

        Me-ow! No need to get so bent out of shape just because you’re still mad that birtherism was a bust and the media didn’t go for the conspiracy theory like you did. Just let it go, OK? Dwelling on past failures and stewing in paranoia isn’t the best way to spend your remaining years.

      • Amazona September 19, 2011 / 8:23 pm

        Yet you still can’t define “birtherism” and cling to the foolishness of applying it to ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with the birthplace of anyone.

        What “conspiracy theory” did I supposedly “go for”?

        Where and when did I question the birthplace of Barack Obama?

        How is “birtherism” defined if it has nothing to do with a question about birth?

        In other words, you preen over the imagined distress I allegedly experienced due to a nonsensical collection of words from someone who is inventing it all and can’t tie in one of his silly pseudo-insults to anything I have actually said.

        In other words, par for the Bodie/jeffy course. Not a single idea, not a single fact, but a whole lot of snottiness which is, I guess, supposed to impress someone. Guess that’s all you have to offer, though.

      • Bodie September 21, 2011 / 2:38 pm

        “the imagined distress I allegedly experienced”

        If your distress is “imagined,” why are you still so upset? Upset to the point that you keep deleting this simple question, even? Are you afraid of the answer?

  8. Amazona September 19, 2011 / 1:19 pm

    “.The coverage of the 2004 election, for instance, started more positive for Kerry until he got tagged as a flip-flopper and had people question his service in Vietnam,..”

    Will you please cite the media coverage of, for example, the Swift Boat crew member comments on Kerry’s service, medals, etc?

    My memory is that I learned what I learned from their book, and did not see any objective coverage of their comments in the media. They were slimed, attacked, vilified, ridiculed and generally dismissed, but without any real attention paid to what they actually said.

    I also did not see any “investigative journalism” regarding the many testimonies about how Kerry got his medals, about his volunteering for Swift Boat duty when it was just about being couriers between the shore and offshore ships and his hissy fit when he learned they had been reassigned to riverine duty and he might actually be shot at, about his evaluations from fellow and supervising officers, etc.

    Tom Brokaw, et al, were remarkably comfortable with having a man who had lied under oath to Congress being elected to the presidency, and never even bothered to question his being named a Hero Of North Viet Nam due to that testimony and other, unspecified, assistance to what were, at that time, our enemies. Not a word about any of this.

    What DID we hear? That Bush was “AWOL” because he asked for an early out of the Air National Guard, and that payroll records for a couple of months of his service were missing.

Comments are closed.