Obama Ate Dog - Important (Assisting A Cultist And His Cult To Power In A Country That's The Standard Bearer Of Freedom? How Dare You Mention Such A Thing?!?)

This is a great cartoon, but you could just as easily replace Clinton with conservatives, and Obama with Romney, and it would sum up my impression of the race so far. This silly lie, that it's now "indecent" to mention Romney's cult - manufactured simply so Romney can have a clear path to the White House - being the worst transgression. Mark Halperin has also noticed how rank the whole process is, focussing on the media:

The President doesn’t think the economy is “doing fine.” Mitt Romney doesn’t oppose firefighters, police, or teachers. Yes, there are legitimate questions about the President’s understanding of how the private sector operates. And, yes, Governor Romney supports less federal aid to states and localities for such jobs than the Democrats do. But shame on the media for starting the week perpetuating the self-fulfilling prophecy that Friday’s gaffes will be a big deal in the election by continuing to pump them. These gaffes will matter because we say they do. 

How can the press ever criticize politicians for trivializing our politics when we focus on statements that have little to do with the candidates actual views or their proposals for the future? But also: shame on both campaigns for saying, in effect, the other guy’s gaffe matters but our guy just had some bad phrasing which should be ignored.

I'll also point out (at the risk of looking like a Rachel Ray fan) this same exact type of tomfoolery is the bread-and-butter of blogs like Instapundit and Althouse - who mostly assist in tying their readers into knots over nonsense, without providing much illumination on what the real issues are, but, instead, help in dragging us down, ever-further, into the stupidity of the lowest-common-denominator herd mentality that defines political groupthink/cultish thinking, etc.

I don't even know why we have blogs anymore, or, at least, why certain bloggers are considered smart/intelligent, etc., considering how little true information they're providing. Oh wait - I do get it:

THAT's what they win kudos for.

Nevermind.

As the old saying goes, "You gets the leaders you deserve,..."

 

I See Nothing, I Hear Nothing, There Is Nothing (Including Nothing I Don't Know,...)

Very interesting: 

Has anyone else noticed that in Mark Halperin's "Between The Lines" column, currently headlined on DRUDGE, except for mentioning "Mitt Romney can win," Halperin doesn't mention Romney as the reason - or even A reason - for why Obama can lose?

This goes to the heart of what I've said all along - that despite what all the hyperventilating conservative clowns said, Obama was going to lose this election on his own, and it would've happened with or without Romney's "inevitable" nomination. Mitt has made no major policy initiatives, said nothing striking, done nothing to earn our allegiance. He just exists, as much of a phantom haunting the American presidency as Obama did in 2008. And, once again, "we the people" and our country are being made victims of Washington's herd mentality. To Joseph Smith's delight.

Ugh - political cultism. 

When, oh when, is my country EVER going to break itself from these delusional spells?

 

Our NewAge President: All "Touchy-Feely" And "Happy-Clappy" (With Oprah's Mumbo-Jumbo)

Hillary brought up the rear with the oogedy-boogedy,...

Hat Tip: iOwnTheWorld

The Macho Response: Mark Halperin

"Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.



'It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,' Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. 'It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.' 



Halperin, who maintains Time's political site 'The Page,' cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.



'The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies,' Halperin said. 'The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her.'

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was 'like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is,' according to Halperin.

...Halperin's general point met with little resistance.



'I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair,' he said. 'The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far.'"

-- Alexander Burns, covering one of the few reporters who wasn't totally "in the tank" for Obama (and, thus, was almost alone in continuing to do his job) as covered on Politico.com.

Halperin Knows: The Media's Betraying America

NOW THAT OBAMA SEEMS TO HAVE IT WON, the press rediscovers a conscience. Here's a transcript excerpt from Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources today, via email from CNN:

On media coverage of money raised during the campaign

KURTZ: Mark Halperin, we learned this morning that Barack Obama in the month of September raised $150 million, the early estimates had been about $100 million. They always kind of leak a lower figure so they can exceed it.

If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn't we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?

HALPERIN: We would. We'd also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal. So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn't ask themselves, why is that, why would it be different if it's a Republican? I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.

There's been a lot of that kind of disservice.

— Glenn Reynolds, pointing out what we all know too damn well, especially at the Instapundit

Obama Knew Bill Ayers Was A Terrorist!!!

Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine starts acting like a journalist and keeps pressing until he gets the goods from a Obama spokesman! He even gets the guy to spout a bunch of NewAge nonsense about how Barack isn't judgmental about terrorism! Then the idiot, cornered by his own words, tries to be evasive and starts revealing how little he actually knows about anything. This is brilliant.

TMR gives a "Big Up" to Mark Halperin: dude, you're doing your profession proud.



Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs

Holding the politician's feet to the fire - we call it: