TMR Vs. TNR: We're Nobody's Media Chumps

Anyone who hasn't noticed the media bias for Barack Obama isn't paying attention. But what exactly does their newfound love tell you? It should tell you only that the media is fickle, like a girl with a mirror and two boyfriends, because that same crew of intrepid "reporters" were, not too long ago, "in the tank" for John McCain - at least, they were as long as they thought he was losing to a Republican. Now that he's done the things that are actually necessary to win the Republican nomination (repeat after me: "I believe in God") they claim he's changed; but the truth is, it's the media that changes - wildly - much the same way wind shifts in a hurricane. And they don't investigate those they fall in love with.

No, our ink stained scribes always, always, always expect us - the, oh, so ignorant and naive voting public - to go along with what they tell us. Like, I'm a black guy, right? What the hell do I know? I'm supposed to go with the Democrat, no matter who it is, right? Riiiiight.

Going along with the media is a game for chumps - which is why Americans rarely ever do it. The press pays no price for being wrong. This is the same media that, on a daily basis, feeds us nonsense NewAge beliefs without serious questioning about whether or not it's healthy to have a large portion of any society engaging in such delusional thinking. (Thinking the hippie-dippy press, itself, obviously endorses and engages in.) This is the same press corps that blew a fuse when a punk named Matt Drudge (above) became a bazillionaire from digging through trash cans to determine what the real news was - and started spreading the word it wasn't what the media was selling. Whether it was the war in Iraq (cheerleading us into it and, then, wrong about The Surge) the last two presidential elections (it was going to be Gore, and then Kerry, remember?) or (more recently) what's been going on with sub-prime mortgages, the media was always wrong; only capable of creating an impressionist painting of what's occurring, and demanding you admire their attention to detail to agree with it, when standing away from the canvas is the only way to see their dot work "clearly".

Now they're making noises like Barack Obama has got it clinched. All the polls are leaning to the string bean black Senator (because of the mind games of groups like The Daily Kos) and even the The New Republic's Howard Wolfson (above) recently declared, "It's Over". Oh-kay. Not exactly "the people have spoken", that one, but just more of the same contrariness the media's always displayed. As a matter of fact, The New Republic, that bi-monthly bastion of Liberal mediathink (since 1914) is a perfect example of exactly how schizophrenic they can seem if you don't know how to understand what you're reading. Check this out:

"He certainly had some better answers on the economy."

-- Franklin Foer, The New Republic's editor, on John McCain's performance during the second debate with Barack Obama, in The New Republic.

Doesn't exactly fit the narrative, of Barack Obama being a better choice during these troubled times, does it? Of course not, but what they really think is always slipping out anyway, hidden between the lines of crap they spew to get you to thinking what they want you to think. And they want you to think Barack Obama's going to win. Why? Barack Obama sells copy, for now - why else? Their job is to sell magazines, not give you the truth.

"True, Ayers apparently had a small party for Obama back in 1995; true, Ayers gave some small sum of money to one of Obama's campaigns; and true, Ayers and Obama simultaneously served, for a time, on a board of a local organization, the Woods Fund, which helps disadvantaged children. But there was nothing even vaguely like a close relationship between them."

-- Cass Sunstein, showing he wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, except if you called it The New Republic.

"A Board"? Singular? Really? That's all? What about The Chicago Annenberg Challenge we've heard so much about? Looks like Mr. Sunstein left that one out. Or that both were at Columbia University at the same time. And the ACORN connections between Obama and Ayers? We now know the money their foundations for "disadvantaged children" (like Woods) and "education" (like Annenberg) never went to anyone but groups like ACORN - and to Ayers himself. Is this guy, Sunstein, kidding?

His claim that Ayers threw "a small party for Obama"? Puh-leaze! It was only the launching of Obama's political career! And there's even a lie attached to that because Barack claimed the person he was succeeding politically, a woman named Patterson, set it up - a claim she denied - and we also now know (with no help from Liberal papers) that Michelle Obama and Ayers's terrorist wife, Bernardine Dorne, worked in the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin together as far back as 1987. No, there's no way these guys are friends! How about the book blurb Obama wrote for Ayers? Indicates nothing: they hardly know each other I tell ya. Ayers speaking in Venezuela two years ago, declaring education is how you radicalize kids? What - he was joking?

Does Cass Sunstein even know what "journalism" is? Come on, people, there's no way The New Republic, or their brethren on the press plane, are giving us anything close to the truth on this - or on, pretty much, anything else.

Let's continue on to race and how The New Republic views the race:

"Maybe McCain has been playing for a bankshot here: Stir up enough nastiness on the right that you goad Obama supporters into crying racism, then righteously denounce the playing of the race card, as Team McCain did this summer, when Obama suggested the GOP would try to make people scared of him."

-- Noam Scheiber, wondering what John McCain could possibly be up to, racially, since he's obviously not ordering a copy of The New Republic.

As a black man, you know I love this one: even when admitting it was Barack Obama who brought race into the election ("this summer") Scheiber never mentions it's Obama with Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger behind him - heùs too busy plotting how it must be McCain who's the racist! Now it's an imagined racial "bankshot" Mac's trying for, when last week it was "code words" (because Liberals didn't hear any actual words) and, before that, it was the media's replaying of Obama's charge to watch out - racism's coming!

And do I need to point out that Scheiber, this fan of the friend of Farrakhan, is Jewish? Wild. A man could probably make a lot of money engaging in the necessary psychoanalytical work these poor tortured souls need. They see racists against black people everywhere - but, especially, hiding in the space between their ears. Can there be any doubt why so many white people seem to, ultimately, hate themselves?

Folks, my point is there's a reality the media (represented here by The New Republic) is trying to mold and, if you fall for it, then you're doing the country, and yourself, a major disservice. Stand back a little bit from the impressionist image they've created and it's easy to see the man with the economic plan is John McCain - they said so! The man in cahoots with criminals is Barack Obama - we know so! The man who's playing the race card is the political left and Barack Obama - The New Republic said it and we know so! Add in ACORN (voter fraud) Tony Rezko (who's in prison) and Odinga (genocide) and we're continuing to get a more realistic picture of Barack Obama: as a man who may sell a lot of copy but has absolutely no place in the Oval Office.

Don't be a sap - we're the American people - and we won't be media chumps.