Like many others I tuned in out of curiosity to watch the CNN debate between Republican Christine O'Donnell and Democrat Chris Coons. The lead up to the debate on CNN and MSNBC had me waiting for the witch to appear on a broom and cast a spell on her opponent. Pre-debate liberal hype left me wondering how long it would take before the undertaker appeared to haul away a shattered O'Donnell.
At first I wondered if the panel was really as stacked against O'Donnell as it appeared. While Coons carefully spouted the Obama party line, O'Donnell keep trying to focus the often bizarre questions on the issues rather than the idiotic.
The moderators, CNN's Wolf Blitzer and longtime Delaware news anchor Nancy Karibjanian of Delaware First Media, seemed to be pressing O'Donnell and interrupting her far more than they did Coons as if CNN had a vested interest in proving their latest poll showing O'Donnell far behind was the gospel truth.
The more O'Donnell spared with the moderators the more they cut her off and before long it was a contest whether the moderators or the Democrat would lose their cool first. It was obvious Karibjanian was of the liberal elitists who seem to hate Sarah Palin and Nancy was out to prove O'Donnell a dunce as if it would make Palin less as well.
But I agree with the New York Times, normally a liberal bastion, who wrote of the debate the following.
But the Republican Senate candidate, Christine O’Donnell, used the 90-minute debate to present a different image to the country than the ones captured on comedy show videos from her youth.
On a range of issues, Ms. O’Donnell offered answers familiar to conservatives.
Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, sought to rebut Ms. O’Donnell, but appeared frustrated, repeatedly telling the moderators that “there’s so much there.”
What really makes me wonder about CNN besides the obvious bias against O'Donnell was how they cut off the debate midway through just when O'Donnell was beginning to dominate the debate and leave Coons flustered. It seems his canned and well rehearsed responses were not holding up to the withering attacks from O'Donnell.
Now long before the debate CNN knew there was a chance the last miners would be rescued. CNN could easily have run the debate in it's entirety on CNN Headline news and still not interrupted the debate. Why stop it just when O'Donnell was clearly starting to dominate? It was as if someone in the production booth suddenly came to the realization O'Donnell had cast a spell and she was starting to win points with the audience. Pull the plug and protect the liberals.
I believe O'Donnell clearly connected with the public mood and her feisty debate with the moderators, not the Democrat, was just becoming good theater.
If it is true O'Donnell is not a viable candidate then why in the world is President Obama, his wife Michelle and Vice President Biden all coming to Delaware to raise money and campaign for Coons, the Obama mouthpiece? With Democrats in trouble all across the country why waste all their time on a race already in the bag?
Maybe there is more going on in Delaware than we have been told.
.
Sometimes the people in the most obvious places have the greatest difficulty seeing the obvious. In the case of the news media, most of which is liberal, and the political party that controls our government, the Democrats, nothing could be more obvious.
Every time a Tea party backed candidate pulls off an upset and topples a Republican backed candidate in the GOP primaries the media and Democrats start dredging up a false sense of hope based on the fact the mainstream GOP candidate lost. They always declare it means the losses to the GOP in the Midterm elections will be much less because of the failure of the GOP backed candidate to win.
I say hogwash. There are three reasons why Tea party primary winners may be a bigger threat to Democrats than mainstream GOP candidates. First, votes for them are a rejection of Democrats just as votes for mainstream candidates are a rejection of the Democrats. Republicans whose candidate lost a primary are not going to vote for the Democrat, they are going to vote for the party.
I mean Obama would not be president if Hillary Clinton supporters did not back him after beating Hillary in the primaries. Yet the political pundits and news media think Republicans will support a Democrat just because their candidate lost the primary?
Second, the driving force behind the Tea party are registered Independents whose vote was also critical in getting Obama elected. They have deserted Obama which everyone knows because he is not the person to cut spending and reduce the debt as they thought. This past year for the first time in modern times the number of registered Independents has passed the number of Democrats or Republicans.
Yet the Independents, because of protectionist election laws, are not even allowed to vote in most primaries or caucuses. That means those Tea party candidates who won a GOP primary did it without the support of their primary base, the registered Independents. Thus the Independent voters will join with the GOP voters in the November elections. Anyone who thinks they will vote for Democrats en masse is goofy.
Third, there is disillusionment and a lack of enthusiasm from the fractured Democratic base because the Obama administration took them for granted and because the Obama administration favored others much more like Wall Street, pharmaceutical executives, health care and other special interests. In other words, there is no compelling reason for these groups to mobilize for the president or the Democratic party.
It is highly likely that the most dangerous opponents for the Democrats this fall are the Tea party outsiders who are far more closely aligned to the mood of the people than either political party. So, a word of advice to the Democratic pundits and news media who herald a Tea party win as a GOP loss in the primaries, get used to sipping tea rather than champagne or bourbon, there is a change coming and a mighty wind is blowing from the west.
In spite of the extensive and ongoing national and cable media efforts to sink Sarah's ship her candidates continue to shake the foundation of politics in America, control of politics by the national political parties, and the progressive liberal media's dying grasps to have a voice in the fall elections.
As the Palin touch brought down yet another incumbent previously declared the clear winner by the left, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Palin had endorsed long shot Joe Miller last June, he holds a clear lead with the majority of votes counted. While several thousand absentee votes remain to be counted, no major race has been decided this year by absentee votes in spite of the hesitation of the media to call the race.
The Palin juggernaut has stunned the political pundits and professional politicians of both parties and when combined with the huge Republican lead in total primary votes cast in state after state should foreshadow a massive Republican victory and setback for the progressive agenda in the fall elections.
Add to that the fact the Obama economic program has failed in spite of efforts by Administration talking heads to plea for patience, the public shows no mood for patience when jobs are stagnate, the future looks bleak, the cause for the economic crisis, housing, has continued to undermine the American dream and the Obama deficit continues to dwarf the Bush years.
If the progressives and liberal media continue their two year coordinated campaign to destroy Palin they are in danger of creating a voter backlash that could well leave liberals an endangered species. Each time the left elite try to end the career of the new American candidates they fail. From the New Jersey and Massachusetts races long ago to Rand Paul in Kentucky, Nikki Haley in South Carolina to Joe Miller yesterday, just when the liberals pronounce them dead on arrival they win.
Even the races lost by the populist candidates, particularly those backed by Palin, have been far closer than the polls indicated and might have been won on recounts in some cases. People are really upset and the media still doesn't get it. One day the pundits who are consistently dead wrong may finally get it, like when they no longer know any politicians in Washington.
.
Sarah Palin, now news commentator on Fox News, continues to baffle the liberal media who are forced to report on her if they want to get daily ratings and hits on the liberal web sites like Huffington Post, Salon.com and other Palin haters. This weekend her appearance on Fox News was reported in all three New York papers, the New York Times, Post and Daily News, the Washington Post (three different articles from the same Fox appearance), numerous daily newspapers, the liberal media (MSNBC, CNN, NPR, Public Broadcasting Network) network television and who knows who else.
Now in the days of journalistic integrity no self-respecting news media outlet would be stealing the story from a competitor but in today's news environment of hijacking and distorting stories by the media they have to swallow their integrity and report on public enemy number 1, Fox News to get the increased hits and views Palin power can deliver.
No one in the liberal camp delivers ratings like Sarah Palin just like no one in politics dominates Main Street media like Sarah Palin and since Palin knows better than to let the liberal media distort her message by granting interviews and giving them stories, they have to steal them from Fox News, Sarah's Facebook or Twitter postings.
Speaking of the liberal media, last week we reported on the liberal media conspiracy to manufacture the news about Palin starting with her nomination as VP by John McCain. The liberal plot, Journolist, was exposed by the Daily Caller and one of the tactics the unethical jerks of the liberal elitists did was to plant a story about her son Trig.
The media plotted to spread a rumor that Trig's mother was actually Bristol Palin, the former Alaska governor's daughter, and the rumor ran rampant among the liberal haters of the internet during the presidential campaign. Of course neither Obama or Biden did anything to discourage the liberals who were supporting them from spreading the rumor. The journalists also urged co-conspirators to used the reference to "Palin's Downs child" along with other negative terms of deception.
In response Palin wrote "There is a sickness and darkness in today's liberal media."
Sickness indeed and it goes much farther with the campaign hacking of her private emails to the incident last week on Facebook where her call to not build the Moslem mosque just two blocks from ground zero in NYC was deleted by Facebook from her Facebook page just because a Palin hater started a campaign to label her racist, yet another old liberal tactic. There are a lot of Jewish and other families who lost loved ones on 9-11 who agree with Palin on this issue. Facebook had to reinstate the comments and apologize to Palin for the un-American censorship, something we should all be concerned about.
As more and more truth comes out about the insidious plot to discredit Palin with lies, rumors and jokes, by many members of the liberal media, and the facts behind the exchange of these lies between the liberals in order to coordinate the deceit between news outlets, the more it becomes obvious the real victims were the people.
We trusted the news media to report the news and they did not. Many people formed unfavorable opinions of Palin because of what was reported, and now we know much of what was reported were lies. Honest Americans should reconsider their attitude about Sarah Palin in light of the plot that was exposed to smear her, a plot that continues to this day.
One wonders why the Obama campaign or White House don't condemn the acts. If President Obama really wants to stop the lies, polarization and partisanship that he and his followers set in motion he can help by stopping the liberal media from flaming the fires of hatred with lies about Sarah Palin and others. I mean they are his supporters. .
Ever since the 2008 presidential campaign the Coltons Point Times has been pointing out the decided liberal, even left leaning liberal following favoring Barack Obama in the mainstream and cable news media. On numerous occasions we identified what appeared to be coordinated attacks by these media people on Sarah Palin, the Republicans and the conservative agenda.
More recently we have done a series of articles on the actions by MSNBC, the NBC news flagship, to demonize the Republicans and anyone who does not agree with their agenda. In particular Fox News and conservative commentators like Bill O'Rielly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh have been targets along with the rampant hatred against Sarah Palin.
Numerous times I wrote articles identifying distortion by the liberal media, and savage attacks far beyond what any good journalist would attempt. It always seemed there was a secret conspiracy among liberal members of the media to coordinate their reporting in order to manufacture the news.
Little did I know it was true. But a series of articles by Tucker Carlson, Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Caller, a conservative web site, has finally got to the bottom of the mystery. Somehow Tucker was able to find a secret web site in which 400 liberal media members shared information with each other on how to discredit the conservatives, Republicans and Sarah Palin in the mainstream and cable news.
The names of prominent news members from the news networks, MSNBC, CNN, National Public Radio and many other liberal establishments show up in the mountain of emails sent back and forth in a concerted and concentrated effort by these supposedly objective reporters for many of the nation's most prominent news organizations.
It will come as no surprise to those of you who follow politics but it is a tremendous disappointment to me who was always proud to be a member of the press and journalism corps and believed these media institutions should have maintained a higher standard.
The following is a story by Tucker Carlson and a previous story by Jonathan Strong exposing the secret liberal media site called "Journolist" that served as the meeting ground by those dedicated to using the news media to advance a very narrow liberal agenda and to distort the news to help Obama.
Daily Caller
Letter from Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson on The Daily Caller’s Journolist coverage
By Tucker Carlson - The Daily Caller | Published: 3:54 PM 07/22/2010 | Updated: 4:41 PM 07/22/2010
We began our series on Journolist earlier this week with the expectation that our stories would be met with a fury of criticism from the Left. A hurt dog barks, after all.
The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.
There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.
To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.
The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”
The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with.
That assurance won’t stop the attacks, of course. So why don’t we publish whatever portions of the Journolist archive we have and end the debate? Because a lot of them have no obvious news value, for one thing. Gather 400 lefty reporters and academics on one listserv and it turns out you wind up with a strikingly high concentration of bitchiness. Shocking amounts, actually. So while it might be amusing to air threads theorizing about the personal and sexual shortcomings of various New Republic staffers, we’ve decided to pull back.
Plus, a lot of the material on Journolist is actually pretty banal. In addition to being partisan hacks, a lot of these guys turn out to be pedestrian thinkers. Disappointing.
We reserve the right to change our minds about this in the future, but for now there’s an easy solution to this question: Anyone on Journolist who claims we quoted him “out of context” can reveal the context himself. Every member of Journolist received new threads from the group every day, most of which are likely still sitting in Gmail accounts all over Washington and New York. So feel free to try to prove your allegations, or else stop making them.
One final note: Editing this series has been something of a depressing experience for me. I’ve been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It’s harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong.
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:15 AM 07/20/2010 | Updated: 1:56 AM 07/21/2010
Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and former pastor of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., addresses a breakfast gathering at the National Press Club in Washington, Monday, April 28, 2008. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote. Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”
Ackerman went on:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”.
If you listened to mainstream media you would think Sarah Palin is the pariah of the midterm elections and that the Tea Party is almost non-existent. Yet when Sarah has endorsed and campaigned for a candidate her picks just keep winning, especially female candidates. The political pundits seem to be surprised to learn the people out on Main Street America believe no Washington politician is a good politician. They even seem surprised that Palin will endorse candidates though her pick is often at odds with the Republican party favorite.
It is almost as if the media and Obama believe the sun rises and sets on our two political parties, though polls show both have no credibility to the voters. Time and again in this election cycle the people have gone against one or both parties to elect or nominate underdogs, in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, and other races. Still the Washington political elite don't get it.
People are fed up with politicians, with spending, with deficits, with campaign funds, with conflicts of interest, with Obama blaming Bush for everything, and with all the self-serving actions being taken in Congress. Of course the experts can spin away all the bad news as long as the people are not paying attention, but when they do look out!
That is where Obama, the Obama gang from Chicago, the Washington politicians, the political party machines and the special interests who control our nation's capitol are failing to hear the people. And that is where Sarah Palin has staked her claim as a spokesperson for the disenfranchised and silent majority of Americans.
If Palin was insignificant on the national political scene as Obama, the Democrats and the liberal media try to prove, why do they spend more time commenting about or covering Sarah than any other politician except Obama? She isn't even holding office or a party leadership position.
Not a day goes by that the liberal media doesn't try to make Palin look bad going so far as to induce her son-in-law to tell lies about the Palin family which he recently admitted. Whenever any poll that shows Palin in a negative light comes out it is shouted from the media castles in NYC to Washington, DC to further prove she is not a legitimate factor in this election year.
To her credit, Sarah Palin, a journalism graduate from college, knows better than to debate the politicians in our capitol. She takes her message straight to the people on Main Street America and in spite of what the media and Obama gang say, Obama is still wailin' about Palin.
While the liberals continue to downplay her successes, undermine her credibility and dismiss her influence, Sarah continues to raise more money than any other non-office holder in either party, help more candidates than Obama, and endear herself to middle America stronger by the day.
You never hear the media, Democrats or Obama administration talk about anything good Palin has done or said, even though Obama himself, a serious Palin basher, has stolen some of her proposals and policies for implementation. But the real truth is in the polling numbers from Main Street America.
Right now in national polls Palin and Obama have almost identical poll numbers. Obama's favorable rating has slipped 19 percentage points in the past year while Palin's have consistently gone up. Most recent polls show Obama with a 43-44% favorable rating while VP Biden has a 26% favorable rating. Sarah Palin has a 40-41% favorable rating as a political figure and she doesn't even hold a political office and is not running for anything right now.
On the negative side Obama and Biden have 48% disapproval, their highest negative numbers since being elected. Palin has about 50-51% negative which means Obama, Biden and Palin all are within the margin of error for the polls so they are virtually tied.
What has Obama wailin' about Palin is the public opinion on the issues and policies. Palin opposes Obama on the Arizona Immigration law and the federal efforts to block enforcement of the law. Most recent national polls show 61% of the public support Arizona's law while 56% of the public oppose Obama's efforts to block the law. Palin stands with Main Street America, Obama does not.
In issue after issue Palin agrees with the national mood of the electorate whether it is offshore oil drilling, a drilling moratorium, opposition to bailouts and stimulus, balancing the national budget, eliminating the national debt, creating a sensible comprehensive energy policy, even health care reform, yet the media tries to paint her as far outside the mainstream of American politics. They are fools.
Sarah Palin knows the pulse of America and is the only person fighting for the people against the political establishment and media manipulators. She could care less what Obama and his minions have to say because they are totally disconnected from the American public. There is no way intellectual and academic elitists like Obama will ever understand the electorate because they will always believe they know what is best for the people and the people are not smart enough to figure things out for themselves.
Arrogance and ego are the biggest sins a politician can commit and Obama has demonstrated over and over these are lessons he does not understand. Palin, who worked her way up from local government to state government as a chief executive and held her own in the national spotlight, has now demonstrated it is she, not Obama, who speak for the people.
Her self-deprecating sense of humor, being able to laugh at herself and all the vicious rumors, has won over more and more people along the way. She is a mother, has a son who served in Iraq, is a patriot yet defends our right to bear arms, hunt and fish, and exercise our Constitutional freedoms. She has a handicapped child, has faced the same problems as us as a parent, and lived under the floodlights of the national media in a fish bowl with no complaints.
As liberals thought she was dead and buried over and over again Palin ignored them and put herself in the national spotlight by championing Main Street America. While Obama relies on Wall Street and a host of special interests to keep the campaign cash flowing Palin is raising far more money from the people to stop the influence of Wall Street and special interests who are being protected by Obama and Congress.
Obama was obsessed with the spotlight given to Palin during the presidential campaign spending as much time and attention running against her as he spent against his opponent McCain. Since being elected and since she resigned as governor he continues to be obsessed with Palin. His obsession has cost him nearly a quarter of his personal popularity while at the same time Palin has gained more than a quarter in popularity in spite of the attacks by the liberal media and Obama gang.
With four months until the election, she has chalked up victory after victory while Obama has lost the major races noted previously and is stunned that many Democrats don't even want him to campaign in their states. Oh yes, Obama's got the Wailin' Palin Blues and it may be time to bring the song back as written and performed by the John Galt Band and update it for the new election cycle. It goes something like this:
Newly nominated Senate candidate Rand Paul, a threat to everything the Administration and left liberals stand for if he gets elected this fall, had not basked in the glory of a stunning primary victory for 48 hours before the propaganda arm of the Obama left and Democrats, PBS and MSNBC, began the task of trapping and discrediting the political neophyte.
It was done with surgical precision in a one-two punch by PBS, followed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC that left the rookie staggering. Much like his father Congressman Ron Paul, who has been a master of communications with our youth and general public but is denied access to much of the national media, Rand Paul takes a rather cerebral approach to news conferences. He actually tries to give an in depth insight into his views and philosophy on issues.
Well the left liberals educated him on why the national media has lost the confidence of the public as they took his words, reinterpreted what he said, and incited national media hysteria over whether he was for or was against the 1960's civil rights act. A little deft editing and the Democratic pit bulls were cut loose trying to force him out of the election before the final primary votes had been counted.
In less than 24 hours he was back trying to do damage control and again he demonstrated he is not quite ready for prime time by trying to explain his position in a reasoned way. Wake up Rand, today's media can only be controlled with sound bites and video clips. Give them 5-10 seconds of senseless patter that keeps you out of trouble and don't get seduced into thinking you can walk right into the liberal lion's nest and be treated with anything but the scorn and fear they have for you.
Now Paul is a fresh face and I have been involved in many political campaigns including running US Senate races and never have I seen such a stupid job by his communications advisors. He should fire his entire communications staff and bring in the pros who can prepare him for the massive scrutiny that he will face throughout the rest of the campaign.
To think that PBS and MSNBC, the national masters of media manipulation and the propaganda machine for the left guard, would give a conservative libertarian a fair interview is just plain stupid. Whoever let him schedule the interviews with the gotcha networks, yes they advertise that they will find a way to smear anyone who does not agree with them, should be replaced as well.
Rand should stay off the air until he gets the right advisors and schedulers and is properly prepped before facing the lions again. He may strike a nerve with the public, but the media is his enemy and he cannot forget it. They have the power to twist your words into anything they believe will hurt your chances to get elected.
Ask Obama who watched the media, who were in his back pocket when he was elected, turn on him. Better yet, ask the most prominent victim of media manipulation in America and one of your first major supporters Sarah Palin what kind of fair break you will receive from the silver screen mouthpieces. She was a trained journalist and proven communicator and look what happened.
Keep your campaign with the people, not the media. Get experienced and good communications and scheduling advisors. And keep your campaign focused on the people of Kentucky and today, not some 1960's law that has nothing to do with the problems America faces today. Lick your wounds and move on, don't keep trying to educate a media that has no interest in telling your story.
We need your independent voice in the Senate. Keep independent of the liberal media and you have a chance. The people of Kentucky deserve no less.
