Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.buffalorange.com/showthread.php?t=146...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
The Press and their ever growing sack....of shit - The Buffalo Range, where the Buffalo fans roam!
CNN's Rick Sanchez: A Shining Paragon of Fairness and Balance
By Brian C.
Ledbetter (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 16:33 ET
At 3:30 yesterday afternoon, CNN's Rick Sanchez described in exquisite detail how fair and balanced his network has been behaving during the 2008 Presidential election.
Specifically, Rick pointed out that:
For the record, CNN has aired 22 reports from Alaska about Sarah Palin.
We've aired 54 reports from Chicago about Obama, his minister, and other stories.
See?
Contrary to our neanderthal conservative beliefs, CNN has been tougher on Obama than it has during its "vetting" of Republican VP Sarah Palin.
Of course, I think Rick might have left out a slight detail or two in his accounting of CNN's fairness....
(and you'll have to keep on reading to find out what it is!)
You see, Barack Obama has been campaigning for 19 months now.
Which means that the network, by my math (54 stories divided by 19 months), put out a grand total of 0.6 "negative" stories about Barack Obama per weekor one every other week, if you ascribe to more "traditionalist" accounting.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin has only been involved in this election for 3 weeks.
Which means that CNN's covered "negative" stories22 stories divided by 3 weeksabout her 7.3 times per week.
Which, again by my math, makes it one negative story every single day.
Guess that's what CNN thinks it means to be an "unbiased observer" of the election.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brian-c...irness-balance
|
|
You see my boy, the reason Palin gets so much negative press is that well she is just a horrible candidate.
Truth be told I am about ready to write in Sodoff Baldrick and Edmund Blackadder and wash my hands clean of the whole thing
|
|
Barack Obama and Bill Ayers: Stanley Kurtz Makes the Connection
By Rich Noyes (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 14:20 ET
Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal and National Review Online, Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Stanley Kurtz traces Barack Obama’s partnership with former domestic terrorist William Ayers when the two collaborated at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity established to help Chicago’s public schools that was commandeered by Ayers to promote his radical agenda.
The association between Obama and Ayers has received virtually no attention from the three broadcast networks, with the conspicuous exception of a primary-season debate sponsored by ABC when George Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relationship with Ayers.
Out of 1,365 broadcast evening news stories about Obama prior to the end of the primaries, only two mentioned Ayers — one a brief mention of the debate question on the April 17 Nightly News, and the other a World News Sunday story about McCain raising the Ayers issue on This Week.
With just 42 days left until Election Day, the broadcast networks have not presented a single in-depth report on Obama’s relationship with Ayers.
But Kurtz’s review of the documents at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) shows the two “worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda,” which “flowed from Mr.
Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.”
For a flavor of Ayers’ continuing radicalism, the New York Times profiled the 1960s radical back on September 11, 2001, the same day as the al-Qaeda attack that killed thousands of New Yorkers at the World Trade Center.
The piece by Dinitia Smith began: “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ Bill Ayers said.
‘I feel we didn’t do enough.’”
A short excerpt from that piece:
Mr.
Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people.
Break up their cars and apartments.
Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been Quote: d so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said.
''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''
He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house.
With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List.
J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr.
Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.
...
In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms.
Dohrn told an S.D.S.
Audience: ''Dig it!
Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''
A month earlier, a profile of Ayers in Chicago Magazine included a picture of Ayers stomping on the American flag.
Marcia Froelke Coburn wrote the accompanying article: “Talk to him for any length of time and some rhetoric of the past slips into the conversation.
‘I think there will be another mass political movement,’ he predicts, ‘because I believe that the kind of injustice that is built into our world will not go quietly into the night.’”
In the mid-1990s, Obama was hired to be the chairman of Ayers’ “brainchild,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Here are the key excerpts from his op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal;
The entire must-read article can be found here.
Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience.
From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001.
The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s.
Among other feats, Mr.
Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions.
Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr.
Ayers's home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association.
Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr.
Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr.
Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC.
Those archives are housed in the Richard J.
Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them....
The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr.
Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.
In the mid-1960s, Mr.
Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto....
CAC translated Mr.
Ayers's radicalism into practice.
Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money.
Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down.
Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Mr.
Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr.
Obama's early campaigns.
External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education.
CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students.
They found no evidence of educational improvement....
Mr.
Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work.
That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system.
He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in.
For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin....
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association;
It's guilt by participation.
As CAC chairman, Mr.
Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr.
Ayers and his radical circle.
That is a story even if Mr.
Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
In his National Review Online piece, Kurtz adds a valuable point about how the radical left dominated the CAC despite the fact that the funding originated with Republican powerhouse Walter Annenberg:
The Obama camp denies CAC’s radicalism by pointing to the fact that this foundation was funded by Nixon Ambassador and Reagan friend, Walter Annenberg.
Moderates and Republicans often support Annenberg activities, it’s true.
Yet the story of modern philanthropy is largely the story of moderate and conservative donors finding their funds “captured” by far more liberal, often radical, beneficiaries.
CAC’s story is a classic of the genre.
Ayers and Obama guided CAC money to community organizers, like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the Developing Communities Project (Part of the Gamaliel Foundation network), groups self-consciously working in the radical tradition of Saul Alinsky.
Walter Annenberg’s personal politics don’t change that one iota.
The fact that Ayers and other tenured radicals hold power at our universities is in no way negated by the presence of Republican appointees on university boards of trustees.
Ayers’s radicalism is undeniable.
He remains unapologetic for his bombings of the 1960s.
Even now, he refuses to rule out violence as a resort.
His education writings are deeply politicized and filled with exhortations to “resist” America’s racist and oppressive social system.
In 2006 — along with his wife and fellow former-terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn, and Jeff Jones — Ayers released, Sing A Battle Song, a collection of intensely radical writings from the Weather Underground.
Ayers makes it clear in that book that, while he is embarrassed by some of the Weather Underground’s rhetoric, he still adheres to the same ideas.
Beyond its strictly historical interest, Ayers and his co-editors make a point of hoping that their old writings would be “of use to new generations of militant activists and organizers.” By directing CAC funds to groups like ACORN and the Developing Communities Project of the Gamaliel Foundation, Ayers was supporting just such militant activists and organizers....
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date.
By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure.
And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise.
The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama.
Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts.
Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.
Kurtz has painstakingly documented the connections between Barack Obama and the radical left.
The only question is, will the so-called mainstream media find any of this worth reporting between now and Election Day?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-no...kes-connection
|
|
AP Whines Palin 'Banned' Them From Chat with Foreign Leaders;
No Such Concern When Obama Did
By Ken Shepherd | September 23, 2008 - 13:04
Associated Press reporter Sara Kugler pounded out a 7-paragraph article today on how McCain running mate Alaska Gov.
Sarah Palin (R), has "[Banned] reporters from meetings with leaders" from around the world.
Palin is in New York City for the open of the United Nations General Assembly.
A review of media coverage from Obama's behind-closed-doors chats with European heads of state, however, shows no such complaint by the media about a lack of access.
Kugler complained that Palin "has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday banned reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew." The reporter noted that her news agency objected to the terms of media coverage the McCain campaign set for Palin's meetings with Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe (emphases mine):
Those sessions and meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaign's effort to give Palin experience in foreign affairs.
She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year.
The campaign told the TV producer, print and wire reporters in the press pool that follows the Alaska governor that they would not be admitted with the photographers and camera crew taken in to photograph the meetings.
At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected and were told that the decision was not subject to discussion.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...bama-met-merke
|
|
NB/TimesWatch's Clay Waters on NYT Bias Against McCain
By NB Staff (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 11:38 ET
Printing an unsubstantiated extramarital affair allegation and questioning John McCain's citizenship status were just two of the more blatant examples of the New York Times's bias against the Republican presidential nominee, MRC's TimesWatch.org Director Clay Waters told FNC's Bill Hemmer on the September 23 "America's Newsroom."
Beyond that, the day-to-day coverage shows a persistent bias on the part of the Times.
Waters, a contributing editor to NewsBusters, was on the program to comment on remarks by a McCain communications director Steve Schmidt lashing out at the Times.
Below is an excerpt of the transcript [audio here]:
BILL HEMMER, host, "America's Newsroom": Give me some numbers, give me some facts, did you do a percentage breakdown?
CLAY WATERS, director, MRC's TimesWatch.org: I actually did a slight percentage breakdown.
I did a month of looking at it, after Obama won the Democratic primaries.
I looked at a month of stories, the ratio was pretty stunning.
It was three-to-one positive-negative for the Obama coverage.
HEMMER: How do you gauge that, Clay?
WATERS: Well, it's just one person looking at the coverage, see who they Quote: , who they don't Quote: , what kind of slant they use in their terminology.
Like the race, they're always accusing McCain of playing the race card.
The Britney Spears-Paris Hilton ad, somehow the Times managed in their news reporting to suggest that there was a race factor there, and you remember the op-ed controversy, where Obama wrote this pro-withdrawal op-ed for the Times, and then McCain--
HEMMER: He submitted his and then they chose not to write [sic] it, that was the first thing that popped into my mind, just based on memory.
They actually what, sorry?
WATERS: Exactly.
They made this excuse that it wasn't in the proper format that they were looking for.
But they were actually asking him for a timetable.
The whole thing about McCain's strategy for Iraq, like it or not, is he doesn't advocate timetables.
There was even a magazine story that managed to denigrate his prisoner-of-war record a little bit.
It said, you know, we like his brave service in Vietnam, but maybe because he was a prisoner-of-war he didn't get the correct liberal line on Vietnam.
He didn't realize that the Vietnam War was corrupt and doomed from the start.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staf...against-mccain
|
|
MRC’s Worst of the Week: ABC Slams McCain, Ignores Obama’s Slandering of Rush
By Rich Noyes (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 11:34 ET
On Thursday’s Nightline, ABC co-anchor Terry Moran offered up a nearly seven-minute-long hit piece on “John McCain 2.0,” about how the GOP nominee has, according to Moran, dramatically changed his basic message, his campaign style, his policy positions and launched a dirty ad campaign.
“The old John McCain repeatedly promised voters a different kind of campaign — nobler, less nasty, better,” Moran argued.
“That was then, this is now.” After running a clip from an ad criticizing Obama for voting in favor of sex education for kindergartners (“called, Quote: , ‘simply false’ by the non-partisan Annenberg Center’s FactCheck.org,” Moran scolded), Nightline offered a condemnatory soundbite from ABC analyst Matthew Dowd: “I think the McCain campaign wants to have a campaign in the mud.”
Yet for all its indignation about McCain’s supposedly filthy tactics, neither Nightline nor any other ABC News program mentioned the new Spanish-language ad put out by the Obama campaign that blatantly distorted a two-year old comment from Rush Limbaugh as a way to incite racial hostility.
Targeting “John McCain and his Republican friends” on the subject of immigration, Obama’s Spanish-speaking narrator began: “They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with, the intolerance.” On the screen appeared the phrase “Cierra tu boca o lárgate!” — “Shut your mouth or get out!” — next to Limbaugh’s face and name.
It’s a false charge: Limbaugh never suggested illegal immigrants should shut their mouth or get out.
Obama’s dirt-diggers surely know this because they found the phrase in a 2006 piece by Limbaugh describing Mexico’s laws against foreigners: “You don’t have the right to protest....You’re a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out!
And if you come here illegally, you’re going to jail....That’s how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country.
Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!”
ABC’s Moran knew all about Obama’s devious ad — his own colleague Jake Tapper detailed the falsehoods in the Obama ad and posted a “fact check” to his ABC “Political Punch” blog on Wednesday: “Tying Sen.
McCain — especially on the issue of immigration reform — to Limbaugh is unfair.
Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue....The [‘shut your mouth’] Quote: is totally unfair.” But Nightline ignored Tapper’s reporting of Obama’s slander, choosing instead to air a one-sided slam on McCain.
So much for fairness.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-no...landering-rush
|
|
Not the Catholic Church?
(Part II): L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal Continues To Grow;
Where's the MSM?
By Dave Pierre (Bio | Archive)
September 22, 2008 - 23:51 ET
Let's ask again: Where is the national media?
The sex abuse scandals at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) continue to grow.
Just since May of this year:
A high school athletic coach was charged with 12 felony counts of sexually assaulting an underage girl, including "five counts of sexual penetration with a foreign object while the victim was unconscious and one count of possession of child pornography." "[P]olice said they believe there may be other victims." The man was also a special education assistant (link).
A former Special Education high school teacher was sentenced to three years in prison after charges of lewd conduct, child molestation, and abuse.
The alleged crimes involved four of his "particularly vulnerable" students (additional link).
A high school principal was arrested for child pornography on his home computer.
Authorities also discovered that he "had posed as a 12-year-old girl in an online chat room and engaged in sexually explicit talk."
A high school teacher pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail for having sex with a minor.
County deputies found the teacher and the underage female student in the back of a car in a parking lot.
A band teacher was arrested on charges of possessing child pornography on his laptop computer.
A high school girls' volleyball coach was fired after a lawsuit surfaced alleging he had a sexual relationship with a female student at his previous school.
But there's more: Steve Thomas Rooney, a former assistant principal at an LAUSD middle school, was arrested last week - again (Thu.
9/18/08). After already being charged for molesting three students, Rooney was arrested on charges for molesting a fourth.
Rooney now faces as many as 18 felony counts (LAT/NB).
Rooney was assigned to his job at the middle school in August 2007 even though the District knew that police had investigated him about an alleged sexual relationship with a student at his previous job at a high school.
That former high school girl has since testified that Rooney impregnated her.
(LAT coverage) LAUSD removed two senior administrators from their posts in May for mishandling the case.
But guess what? The district quietly returned the pair to work.
Then a third administrator, a high school dean, surrendered to face charges that he withheld evidence regarding Rooney and one of the underage female students.
Earlier this year we wrote how KNX reporter Steve Feldman exclusively reported that "21 teachers and administrators have been yanked from [LAUSD] schools in the past year because of allegations of inappropriate sexual contact with kids." That was in May.
What is the total number now?
We also wrote of how Feldman questioned LAUSD Deputy Superintendent Ramon Cortines over the phone about the scandal.
Cortines became agitated by the questioning and actually hung up on Feldman (must-hear audio).
In discussing the scandal with KNBC-TV in Los Angeles, Cortines defiantly responded, "This is not out of the ordinary for school districts all over the nation.
These things happen."
"These things happen"?
Where's the outrage?
Where's the media coverage?
Since 2002, the media has frolicked in covering decades-old allegations of sexual abuse by clergy of the Catholic Church.
In fact, they still take joy in hammering the Church, even with misinformation and falsehoods (as we've chronicled here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Let's say it again: When it comes to the abuse of children, it sure seems like the national media doesn't get too worked up unless the words "Cardinal," "bishop," or "priest" is in someone's job title.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pi...ntinues-grow-w
|
|
Why Doesn't the Media Report the Facts on Where the Blame Belongs on Financial Crisis?
By John Stephenson (Bio | Archive)
September 22, 2008 - 20:06 ET
Since the current financial crisis is taking place under a Republican administration it is easy for people to automatically blame Republicans.
The media have happily pushed this misconception too.
Facts the media ignore are things such as the very groundwork for today’s problems being rooted in legislation created by Jimmy Carter , or that in 2003 President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis that was blocked by Democrats on party lines.
However, the media don’t report these very important and significant facts and so it is no wonder that the GOP takes the brunt of the blame in this recent CNN poll.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks — one factor that may have contributed to an apparent increase in Barack Obama’s edge over John McCain in the race for the White House.
In the new survey, released Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned say Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market, with 24 percent saying Democrats are more responsible.
One in five of those polled blame both parties equally, and 8 percent say neither party is to blame.
Is it possible that these registered voters are basing their opinions without the full facts?
Well, I’m sure the polls would not reflect so favorably for Barack Obama if the American people were properly informed that Fannie and Freddie co-opted over $120,000 to Barack Obama over less than four years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Perhaps the polls wouldn't reflect so negatively for Senator John McCain if the public were informed that during the same timeframe Obama was pocketing money from these corrupted institutions, John McCain was fighting to reform them.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market.
OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.
In fact, the report does quite the contrary.
OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S.
190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.
If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
Ed Morrissey explains why this is important, and why John McCain needs to push back against the way the media has painted this.
We can play blame games for the next several months and years, but what would be the point?
In this case, there is a point, and it couldn’t be more clear or important.
We have two candidates running for President who would bring much different styles to executive authority over regulatory responsibility.
Barack Obama and his allies took the money and stayed on the sidelines rather than take proactive action to resolve the credit crisis.
McCain and his co-sponsors of this bill had the right idea and instincts, but could not get any cooperation from Clinton, Schumer, or Obama.
In simple summary, Republicans including John McCain tried to prevent this crisis back in 2005, and Democrats like Barack Obama chose self interest over doing so.
Can we expect the media to report these facts?
Of course not. Pesky facts only get in the way of agendas.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-st...nancial-crisis
|
|
NBC Gives Obama Tax Proposal Favorable Treatment to McCain's
By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 15:19 ET
"Here's what an Obama world would look like: The vast majority of households would pay less tax, not more ...
What would John McCain's world look like?
The top 1 percent of earners would see their taxes go down, an average of $50,000."
That sounds like a television ad for Sen.
Barack Obama's presidential campaign, but it actually came from NBC's Sept.
22 broadcast of "Nightly News." CNBC correspondent Carl Quintanilla gave an analysis of the two presidential candidates' tax proposals.
But according to the report, the middle class stand to gain more from an Obama tax proposal.
"Amid all the rhetoric here's one easy way to look at taxes," Quintanilla said.
"A middle-class household earning $38,000 to $66,000 a year would get an average tax cut under McCain of $325, under Obama, $1,100.
Sound simple? It isn't.
The government suddenly has a trillion dollars in bailouts and the candidates disagree on how to tax the wealthiest Americans, the top 1 percent, to pay for it."
Quintanilla laid the basic proposals out for viewers.
According to the CNBC reporter, McCain favors more money in the hands of Americans and Obama favors higher taxes on some with the tax revenues going to those "left behind."
"Either their taxes should be kept low as McCain says - so they'll keep spending and employing Americans with their small businesses," Quintanilla said, "or they should pay more, as Obama says, with that money going to help Americans he claims were left behind in our 20-year economic boom."
Quintanilla implied the wealthy would benefit from McCain's plan, but didn't mention that all tax brackets would see lower tax bills under his proposal, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis Quintanilla cited in his report.
He referred to the Center as "non-partisan," but it is run by the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.
"Obama's plan would greatly accelerate the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people.
...1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined," the Tax Foundation reported.
Raising taxes in a fragile economy - as identified by Ed Morrissey of Hot Air on Sept.
8 - would not be a good idea.
"Obama acknowledged in an ABC interview that rescinding the Bush tax cuts in a recession - as he has described the economy - would be destructive," Morrissey wrote.
Quintanilla laid the basic proposals out for viewers.
According to the CNBC reporter, McCain favors more money in the hands of Americans and Obama favors higher taxes on some with the tax revenues going to those "left behind."
"Either their taxes should be kept low as McCain says - so they'll keep spending and employing Americans with their small businesses," Quintanilla said, "or they should pay more, as Obama says, with that money going to help Americans he claims were left behind in our 20-year economic boom."
Quintanilla implied the wealthy would benefit from McCain's plan, but didn't mention that all tax brackets would see lower tax bills under his proposal, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis Quintanilla cited in his report.
He referred to the Center as "non-partisan," but it is run by the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.
"Obama's plan would greatly accelerate the decades-long trend toward a federal government that depends for tax revenue almost exclusively on a few high-income people.
...1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined," the Tax Foundation reported.
Raising taxes in a fragile economy - as identified by Ed Morrissey of Hot Air on Sept.
8 - would not be a good idea.
"Obama acknowledged in an ABC interview that rescinding the Bush tax cuts in a recession - as he has described the economy - would be destructive," Morrissey wrote.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...atment-mccains
|
|
Watch Your Back, Barack: McCain Will "Distort" Your Views in Debate
Reporter Katharine Seelye warns that John McCain is "handy with the rhetorical shiv" in debates and tells Obama to expect to have his views distorted by McCain.
Posted by: Clay Waters
9/23/2008 3:32:30 PM
Watch your back, Barack: John McCain is "handy with the rhetorical shiv" in debates and will "distort" your views.
That's the warning reporter Katharine Seelye gave in Tuesday's profile of McCain leading up to Friday night's first presidential debate, "A Scrappy Fighter, With a Debating Style Honed in and Out of Politics."
Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, heads into the first debate on Friday with a track record as a scrappy combatant and the instincts of a fighter pilot, prepared to take out his opponent and willing to take risks to do so.
He has used fairly consistent techniques during his roughly 30 debates on the national stage: he is an aggressive competitor who scolds his opponents, grins when he scores and is handy with the rhetorical shiv.
Just ask Mitt Romney, whom Mr.
McCain filleted on several occasions in debates during the primaries, perhaps most infuriatingly for Mr.
Romney when Mr. McCain misleadingly asserted that Mr.
Romney favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
A review of several of Mr.
McCain’s debates shows that he is most comfortable and authentic when the subject is foreign policy.
And in a stroke of good fortune, foreign policy is the topic for Friday, the first of three 90-minute debates with Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.
Voters give higher marks to Mr.
McCain as a potential commander in chief, and Mr.
Obama should expect Mr.
McCain to question his credentials for the job at every turn -- and to distort his views, as Mr.
Romney insisted he did.
While Seelye saw McCain as eager to stick in the rhetorical knife, Obama's problem is he's just too intellectual, according to John Broder's matching piece, "Obama Carries Uneven Record as Debater to First Contest With McCain."
Senator Barack Obama has shown himself at times to be a great orator.
His debating skills, however, have been uneven.
Some of his chief strengths -- his facility with words, his wry detachment, his reasoning skills, his youthful cool -- have not always served him well and may pose significant vulnerabilities in the series of presidential debates that begins Friday, according to political analysts and a review of his earlier debate performances.
Mr.
Obama has a tendency to overintellectualize and to lecture, befitting his training as a lawyer and law professor.
He exudes disdain for the quips and sound bites that some deride as trivializing political debates but that have become a central part of scoring them.
He tends to the earnest and humorless when audiences seem to crave passion and personality.
He frequently rises above the mire of political combat when the battle calls for engagement
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2...923152638.aspx
|
|
Quote: : CNN's Rick Sanchez: A Shining Paragon of Fairness and Balance
By Brian C.
Ledbetter (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 16:33 ET
At 3:30 yesterday afternoon, CNN's Rick Sanchez described in exquisite detail how fair and balanced his network has been behaving during the 2008 Presidential election.
Specifically, Rick pointed out that:
For the record, CNN has aired 22 reports from Alaska about Sarah Palin.
We've aired 54 reports from Chicago about Obama, his minister, and other stories.
See?
Contrary to our neanderthal conservative beliefs, CNN has been tougher on Obama than it has during its "vetting" of Republican VP Sarah Palin.
Of course, I think Rick might have left out a slight detail or two in his accounting of CNN's fairness....
(and you'll have to keep on reading to find out what it is!)
You see, Barack Obama has been campaigning for 19 months now.
Which means that the network, by my math (54 stories divided by 19 months), put out a grand total of 0.6 "negative" stories about Barack Obama per weekor one every other week, if you ascribe to more "traditionalist" accounting.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin has only been involved in this election for 3 weeks.
Which means that CNN's covered "negative" stories22 stories divided by 3 weeksabout her 7.3 times per week.
Which, again by my math, makes it one negative story every single day.
Guess that's what CNN thinks it means to be an "unbiased observer" of the election.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brian-c...irness-balance Gil, I have already vanquished you on this point, quite emphatically, as I recall.
This is defensive posturing bullshit.
They wanted to photo-op, but no editorial (read actual interview) interactions.
Sounds to me like they are afraid that Palin will be exposed.
In any case, this is a tired trope, liberal media, liberal media, liberal media!
When all else fails, blame someone else.
|
|
Quote: : Gil, I have already vanquished you on this point, quite emphatically, as I recall.
This is defensive posturing bullshit.
They wanted to photo-op, but no editorial (read actual interview) interactions.
Sounds to me like they are afraid that Palin will be exposed.
In any case, this is a tired trope, liberal media, liberal media, liberal media!
When all else fails, blame someone else.
Vanquished me? You with your liberal rose colored glasses couldn't vanquish a mite.
|
|
AP's Palin Reporter Gave to Liberal 527 Group in 2004
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
September 23, 2008 - 18:05 ET
Earlier today I noted how AP reporter Sara Kugler painted the McCain/Palin campaign as having "banned" print reporters from asking the Republican vice presidential candidate questions as she met with foreign leaders.
This despite no concern by the AP or other print outlets back in July when Barack Obama conducted closed-door meetings with European heads of state.
Now a NewsBusters tipster has brought to my attention that Kugler shelled out a few benjamins to a liberal 527 during the 2004 campaign.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...527-group-2004
|
|
|
Obama's a secret Muslim too.
|
|
Quote: : Vanquished me?
You with your liberal rose colored glasses couldn't vanquish a mite.
Guess you forgot all about this .
. .
http://www.buffalorange.com/showthread.php?t=142754
Funny how conservatives really love that revisionist history.
You know, like McCain the regulator versus McCain the deregulator
McCain and big oil
Etc etc.
|
|
|
Quote: : Obama's a secret Muslim too.
My muslim faith ~"Barack Hussein Obama
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...s-his-critics/
From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
Quote: : Vanquished me?
You with your liberal rose colored glasses couldn't vanquish a mite.
Well,maybe THESE guys can....
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/i...pic_id=1056039
Be advised,though...there's a LOT of stuff there.(The first page only covers the last 2-3 weeks or so.)
|
|
|
Quote: : ...
|
|
Quote: : Vanquished me?
You with your liberal rose colored glasses couldn't vanquish a mite.
Yes they could. He aimed them at McCain's "press conference" and sure enough, there hasn't been one.
For 40+ days.
|
|
|
Quote: : My muslim faith ~"Barack Hussein Obama
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...s-his-critics/
From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Uppy scared of a boogie man.
|
|
CNN Correspondent Aneesh Raman Quits to Join Obama Campaign
By Matthew Sheffield (Bio | Archive)
September 24, 2008 - 13:15 ET
Aneesh Raman, formerly an international correspondent for CNN left the network in June to "try something different."
Little did we know that by "different" he meant working for Barack Obama's messaging shop sending out emails.
At least Raman has finally admitted his bias, though.
He's quite different from many of his former colleagues at CNN who are registered to vote as Democrats but fail to disclose this fact to viewers.
Raman is hardly the first prominent television journalist to go work for Democrats this year.
In May, ABC reporter Linda Douglass joined up to work as a strategist and spokesman.
A third journalist, ABC News anchor Carole Simpson signed up with the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primaries.
Currently working for the Obama campaign is Kate Albright-Hanna, a former CNN producer who pitched her services to Obama in 1999 while she was still working at the network.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...obama-campaign
|
|
Democrats Covering Democrats: Many CNN Personalities Registered Left
By Matthew Sheffield (Bio | Archive)
August 28, 2008 - 17:15 ET
As the Democrats begin to wind down their national convention, we at NewsBusters are revving a series of reports under the banner "Quick Study" that take an in-depth and quantitative look at the ways cable news anchors and correspondents use information and perspectives to frame the race to suit their liberal ideology.
We especially intend to shine a bright light on pretentions of objectivity that fall short of this standard, such as CNN's new motto, "No bias.
No bull."
The dispute between Joe Scarborough and his liberal MSNBC colleage David Shuster ("your party?") brought the issue of party registration among elite media to the forefront of cable news watchers' minds so we figured, why not check up on the actual party registration data of CNN, the self-styled "objective option" for cable viewers?
As it turns out, the idea of CNN's objectivity is difficult to square with the partisan leanings of many of the network's own anchors and correspondents.
Many of the men and women covering the Democratic National Convention for CNN, including quite a few of their top tier reporters, are registered Democrats according to voter data
Below is a list of Democratic CNN anchors and correspondents who are covering the Democratic National Convention (there are no registered Republicans):
Anderson Cooper is a registered Democrat.
Jeanie Moos is a registered Democrat.
Gloria Borger is a registered Democrat.
Jeanne Meserve is a registered Democrat.
Suzanne Malveaux is a registered Democrat.
Soledad O'Brien is a registered Democrat.So when Anderson Cooper turns to Gloria Borger (who is sitting next to former Democratic operative Donna Brazile) for perspective on how things are going at the Democratic Convention, bear in mind that viewers are watching two people who are likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for president.
For the record, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Mika Brzezinski and Monica Novotny are all registered Democrats as well.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...ring-democrats
|
|
Slate's Shafer: NYT Isn't Pulling for Obama
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
September 24, 2008 - 09:19 ET
"I don't believe that the Times is pulling for Barack Obama." Jack Shafer, Slate, 9-23-08
There's actually much to agree with in Jack Shafer's column today regarding McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt's criticism of the New York Times.
Consider this observation by Shafer, for example:
The press corps does adore Barack Obama.
They like his story.
They like writing about him.
They like the way he gives speeches.
They like the way he makes them feel.
And they don't mind cutting him slack whenever he acts like a regular politicianwhich he is.
But Shafer, Slate's resident media critic, also expresses the to-me mind-boggling belief cited at the top of this item, that the Times isn't pulling for Obama.
So stunned was I by Shafer's claim that I wrote him, seeking clarification.
He was nice enough to reply, and I'm setting forth our exchange here:
Me: Is it your view that unlike the rest of the press, the NYT does not adore Obama, or is it that the Times doesn't pull for him despite adoring him?
Shafer: Everybody adores Obama, just as everybody loved McCain in 2000.
But that doesn't mean they're pulling for him.
Me: It's hard to imagine that most journalists are so principled and disciplined that they can adore a candidate without pulling for him.
To be precise: I sent my inquiry to the email address Slate provided for correspondence with Shafer's column, and addressed my message to him by name.
The reply was from that account, but unsigned.
I'm assuming it came from Shafer.
So what do people think:
Is the NYT not pulling for Obama?
Is it possible for MSMers to simultaneously "adore" Obama yet not pull for him?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...-pulling-obama
|
|
|
|