What is going on here? Just about every news channel seems to be obsessed with the fact that during the night, yet each of them ignored the that he got today from Bill Clinton's former Energy Secretary:
Federico Pena, a former mayor of Denver who also served as EnergySecretary in the Clinton administration, announced his endorsementtoday in the Democratic presidential campaign.
He took a pass on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husbandhired him, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who succeeded him asenergy secretary. The party’s best candidate, he believes, is SenatorBarack Obama.
“I have come to conclude that Barack Obama has the depth of judgmentthat our country needs to usher in a new era of global leadership,†Mr.Pena told reporters this afternoon on a conference call arranged by theObama campaign. He added, “For me, judgment and wisdom are far moreimportant than experience. But frankly, I like the experience thatSenator Obama has.â€
Pena is a guy that spent most of his tenure at war with the Republicans and oil companies over the issue of energy reform. For a former Energy Secretary, who is passionate about energy independence, to endorse Obama, it certainly says a whole lot about the confidence he has in the freshman Senator from Illinois to lead our country and change the way we consume resources.
But this was too substantive for the media to cover. People like Tucker Carlson were busy joking about Obama's snoring habits. The MSNBC host even that Barack and his wife Michelle do not sleep in the same bed. This is what our political discourse has been reduced to.
Recently, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll noted that liberals read more books than conservatives. This combined with a poll noting that in the US did not read any books in 2006 indicates a trend toward sound bites and slogans. Pat Schroeder, head of the American Association of Publishers, has a theory as to why this is the case. Note: The following section may be considered offensive to our conservative readers. Fortunately, according to the AP-Ipsos study, no conservative readers will manage to read this far.
"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."
Once again, we're stuck with a generation of voters on the right side of the aisle that don't want to actually be informed of the very issues that affect their lives. The Right packages up talking point slogans and bores them into the heads of the American people. "Terrorists hate our Freedom. Iraq is making Progress. Democrats want to 'cut and run.' We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." Without context, these slogans mean nothing. But through the miracle of incessant repetition, people start to buy into it. One poll I would love to see AP-Ipsos run would be applicable only to the population of Americans that still support the president and his war. There only has to be one question; multiple choice of course! Question: Where do you obtain your information on the government and the war? A. Newspapers B. Newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch C. The Internets D. Television News Stations E. Television News Stations owned by Rupert Murdoch F. I read a book about it
See how many of these conservatives want to know more about the world than the sound bites they hear on Fox News.
We are in for a hard-fought war debate in the month of September. Before Labor Day weekend, the nonpartisan CBO will release its analysis on the situation. Less than two weeks later, General David Petraeus will read the . A number of Republicans up for reelection in 2008 will need to decide whether to jump ship and support the Democrats' proposal of withdrawing troops, or follow in lockstep with the President's . A conservative group is trying to prevent the former from happening.
The group Freedom's Watch is unveiling television ads in certain television markets in hope of preventing Republicans who are on the fence from backing troop redeployment. They invoke 9/11, and state unequivocally that the US will get attacked if we leave Iraq. There are four ads. Let's go through each one:
1) "They attacked us, and they will again."
2) "We're dealing with the safety of our country, of our sacred United States of America."
3) "We've already had one 9/11, we don't need another."
4) "Switching their votes now for political reasons, it will mean more attacks in America."
This strategy is nearly identical to the one that the swift boat group implemented in 2004 against John Kerry. Get experienced DC-based political operatives, and parade soldiers in front of the camera to tout whatever message across. It's quite effective, in that it will probably cause at least a few Republicans to buckle.
And because soldiers are the ones saying it, the lines that these PR people are feeding them can go farther than the most right-wing lawmakers. They tell us that we will get hit again if we pull out. Kind of like what in 2004 about what would happen if Kerry got elected:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hitagain -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from thestandpoint of the United States," Cheney said.
This Freedom's Watch group has Ari Fleischer, the former White House Press Secretary, as its PR person. So you can see why Cheney-like tactics are being used.
Please , and tell them not to let Washington insiders like Freedom's Watch fool them into supporting the President on what has been a failed policy from the beginning.
The traditional media, with the exception of Fox News of course, is neither conservative nor liberal -- they are just out of touch and often times lazy. They brand each political party with certain archetypes, and keep reinforcing those same archetypes even when circumstances change. To them, the Republicans are the strategically superior party, while the Democrats are a bunch of wimps without direction. Look at the opening two paragraphs from an story late last night:
Democrats are warily anticipating a September report on the Iraq war, realizing that opponents will use any upbeat assessment to portray them as defeatists just as glimmers of hope appear.
While many of their party colleagues find the notion fanciful, theyacknowledge that top Republicans hope the report will show just enoughprogress in Iraq to persuade millions of Americans to be patient abouttroop withdrawals and less critical of how the war is being run.
More than fifteen days before Petraeus gives his report, the AP is already proclaiming the event to be a GOP political victory.
Maybe AP writer Charles Babington forgets that the progressive netroots is the new mainstream face of the Democratic Party. So Charles, do we look "wary" to you? Do we "acknowledge" that Petraeus' speech, which will be anyway, will be a success? I think not. In fact, we will be ready to confront any statement made about the war that contradicts what has been reported.
Petraeus is giving a political speech, and we will treat it like one. We are not going to sit back comfortably as a Bush loyalist attempts to extend this war even longer, and personally cost more soldiers their lives. Doesn't sound like wariness to me.
But Babington did not ask for our take. Instead, he selectively quoted blue dog Democrat James Clyburn from a statement he made last month:
In late July, House Majority Whip James Clyburn,D-S.C., said an upbeat assessment from Petraeus would carry significantweight with his party's most conservative members. They would "want tostay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as theyhave been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn told TheWashington Post.
The traditional media has already made up its mind on something before it happened. They need to understand this is not the 2002, 2003 oor 2004 Democratic Party that acted as if they were in timeout every time they voted against an pork-inflated defense bill. This is the new blue movement -- a movement orchestrated by people, not high-priced Washington consultants.
I missed this one yesterday, but got a laugh out of it this morning when I read it. Karl Rove went on three Sunday news shows -- Meet the Press, Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday. Of the three, Rove seemed to be the most annoyed during the Fox interview.
When host why he chose not to comply with a congressional subpoena, the White House adviser who will resign at the end of the month seemed a bit irked by the question:
Mr. Rove said the Constitution prevented him from complying with aCongressional subpoena to describe his part in the firings of United States attorneys.
When Mr. Wallace argued that executive privilege did not prevent himfrom answering a reporter’s questions (“Why did you push to fire someU.S. attorneys in the president’s second term?â€), Mr. Rove turnedtesty. “I know you don’t understand you’re being an agent of Congresswhen you ask me that question,†he said. “But you are.â€
Fox News is usually considered by Bush officials as a safe harbor.
Chris Wallace an agent of the Democrats? Now that is a line we will definitely never hear anyone use again.
Just one month before General Petraeus' report to Congress, the traditional media is giving the Bush Administration all the political cover and momentum they need. Because after all, if the Iraq war ends, the media would have to more devote time to, heaven forbid, health care and energy independence -- issues that don't have as much entertainment value as Geraldo Rivera in the Iraqi sand.
This morning the resorted to citing Pentagon talking points that major attacks in Iraq have declined since the troop surge began. Of course, the word "major" is open to interpretation.
So is the violence really down? Based on over the last 72 hours from Iraq -- you tell me:
YUSUFIYA - U.S. and Iraqi forces searching for information about thekidnapping of two American soldiers detained 22 suspected insurgents onSaturday, the U.S. military said. The U.S. military said Iraqi troopshad entered a mosque to detain the suspects in Yusufiya just south ofBaghdad, while U.S. forces surrounded the mosque but did not enter it.The two American soldiers have been missing since May.
BAGHDAD - U.S. forceskilled an estimated three to five men suspected of bringing weaponsfrom Iran and arrested 13 others in a pre-dawn raid in the Shi'ite slumof Sadr City in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military said.
SAMARRA - Gunmen killed three civilians on Sunday when they openedtheir fire in central Samarra 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad,police said.
BAGHDAD - Three people were wounded by a mortar attack in eastern Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi army killed three insurgents and arrested 11 onSunday in a raid in the northern city of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles)north of Baghdad, the Defence Ministry said.
KIRKUK - Threewere wounded in a roadside bomb attack near a police patrol in thenorthern city of Kirkuk, police said. They also said a person wasinjured in a separate mortar attack.
BAGHDAD - U.S. troopscaptured a key financier of a militant group believed to have directties to Iran during a pre-dawn raid in western Baghdad, the U.S.military said.
AL-ZAP - Gunmen killed the head of the Sunni Arabal-Jubour tribe and wounded two of his sons when they burst into hishouse on Sunday night in al-Zap 35 km (20 miles) southwest of thenorthern city of Kirkuk, police said.
HILLA - Gunmen killed one Iraqi soldier in central Hilla 100 km (62 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
ISKANDARIYA - Police said they recovered a body from the Euphratesriver and found another one Iskandariya 40 km (25 miles) south ofBaghdad on Sunday.
TIKRIT - Bombers blew up an empty housebelonging to colonel Esam al-Azzawi, head of a police academy, inTikrit 175 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
TIKRIT - Kidnappers seized the mayor of the town of Dijla, near Tikrit, police said.
And of course, the press corps can only in places where it is safe enough to send undercover Iraqis out to investigate security incidents -- so there may have been more. Like in Basra, where a group of insurgents have . According to Ken Pollack, a member of the who just returned from Iraq, the situation in the south is out of control (he actually used those words):
Ken Pollack, a foreign affairs expert at the Washington-based BrookingsInstitution, who returned last month from an eight-day visit to Iraq,dismissed last week the British presence in southern Iraq as"meaningless". He said: "I am assuming the British will no longer be[in southern Iraq]. They are not there now. We have a battle groupholed up in Basra airport. I do not see what good that does except forflying people in and out. It's the wild, wild west. Basra is out ofcontrol."
When Britain begins withdrawing from Iraq at the end of this year, US forces will have to fill the void in southern Iraq, stretching the military even thinner than it already is.
So again, is the situation getting better? Not even close!
After watching the entire earlier this week, I have been patiently waiting for someone -- ANYONE! -- to point out how ridiculously flirtatious Fox News host Neil Cavuto was towards George W. Bush. With Bill Maher on vacation and busy running for Senate, who else but Jon Stewart came to the rescue.
My favorite line:
STEWART: I have a follow-up (question). Can I lick you?
It comes as no surprise that Cavuto has been granted four interviews with Bush since 2001. Gee, I wonder why?
At least Thomas wrote those words, so he did not have to worry about maintaining a straight face while speaking them.
In a Wednesday column, Cal Thomas -- a Fox News contributor, obviously -- commended News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch for :
Before Fox News Channel was born, I met with several network newspresidents, telling them that someone was going to go after ademographic that felt shutout by the mainstream media. These people, Isaid, go to church, fly the flag, respect the nation’s traditions andinstitutions and hate the liberal media. They feel censored, orstereotyped, by the media elites. I told them the person who recognizesthat demographic and gives them a voice would reap a huge reward.
That person is Rupert Murdoch. He is not the media Satan, as the leftlikes to portray him. Some of the offensive (to me) tabloid stuffnotwithstanding, he just may be the media’s savior. The elites hatehim, but growing numbers of people are buying his products.
Elites hate him? How can that be if he is an elite himself?
Just to get things straight, let's have a refresher on what the word "" actually means:
a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group
News Corp -- which includes the Fox Network, Fox News Channel, 20th Century Fox Studios, Dow Jones, dozens of magazines, and the list goes on. Looks elite to me.
As far as being a media savior, it's not a strange coincidence that growing numbers of Americans choose to get their news from blogs. There is little diversity in the traditional media industry, and bloggers are filling the vacuum.
Despite the fact that they only visited selected Sunni areas during their stay to Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote in the this week that the situation in Iraq was getting better. As the traditional media concluded, O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, so he must know what he is talking about, right?
Actually, as noted in Thursday's LA Times, O'Hanlon's findings contradicted what the reported about Iraq on July 23rd:
It reported July 23 that "violence nationwide has failed to improvemeasurably over the past two-plus months," and that -- contrary totheir enthusiasm about the provision of electricity and otheressentials -- "the average person in Baghdad can count on only one ortwo hours of electricity per day," far less than they had underHussein. More ironically still, the person in charge of the Iraq Indexis none other than Michael O'Hanlon!
One big difference though: the NYT column received a load of media attention and the one that reported a less rosy picture did not. Some liberal bias!
Early this morning, word crossed the wires that Fox News owner for $5 billion. Dow Jones is the parent company of the Wall Street Journal:
The companies said in the wee hours of Wednesday morning that theysigned a definitive merger agreement after the deal won sufficientsupport to pass from a deeply divided Bancroft family, which hascontrolled the storied newspaper publisher for generations.
Murdoch is getting one of the great trophies of U.S. journalism anda newspaper that is considered required reading among the business andpower elite.
The deal will also expand Murdoch's already massive global media andentertainment empire News Corp., which owns the Fox broadcast network,Fox News Channel, the Twentieth Century Fox movie and TV studio,MySpace, newspapers in Australia and the U.K., and several satellite TV broadcasters.
A very sad day for the traditional news media. With all this media consolidation, blogs just became all the more important.
Recent Comments