Bulldog Reporter announces that Fox News is pulling head of CNN again after the latter had a brief respite from a six year slump in the popularity of its news content. MSNBC continues at a sad and distant third.

Now, I don't know that Fox news coverage, integrity, blah, blah, blah is all that much better in quality that CNN's. But it certainly is different in terms of its bias. All news is biased because all news is reported by humans and all humans are biased.

Furthermore, we tend to associate with those who most share our interests and worldviews, so it follows that a network that is built of reporters who associate on conservative worldviews is going to be conservative. Likewise for a liberal network.

And that's okay. That's what the First Amendment was meant to protect. On the dark side of things, with Obama a serious contender for the presidency and a Democrat-controlled congress, the Fairness Doctrine looms on the horizon. For a peek at how scary the Left is becoming in their fanatical thinking about reinstating this outdated and poorly conceived idea, see here.

Labels: censorship, cnn, democrats, Fairness Doctrine, Fox News, Liberals, Obama, ratings

“…they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Is it me, or does this seem like a Freudian slip? This is revealing to me about Obama, not because of his antipathy towards some of the things that are generally valued or, at least, constitutionally protected. No, it seems to me that this is more self-descriptive than almost anything else we hear from Obama. It seems that Obama’s hides a bitterness that has turned him towards a hateful religion, a dislike of people that aren’t like him (like, uh, the white people he regularly disparaged in his books), and anti-trade sentiment (unless its his love for trade that makes him want to rescind free-trade agreements).

Shelby Steele talks about the mask that Obama wears. I think in one candid and Freudian moment, Obama’s mask was pulled away and we saw something of Obama’s deeper psychology and his view of the world.

UPDATE: I wrote the above post before I saw this from Victor Davis Hanson. I would use the "great minds think alike" cliche, but I wouldn't dare put myself in his class.

The problem with the Obama Marin County speech, inter alia, is that it invites comparison to himself—as all condescension does, being the nursemaid to hypocrisy. So if religion is a crutch for the embittered of Middle America, what is the creepy Rev. Wright for Obama? So the frustrated protectionists of Middle America are “anti-trade”, what then does that mean for the Harvard-educated NAFTA-trashing Obama? If Middle America can distinguish illegal from legal immigration, why can’t Obama in remarks to sophisticated Marin county elites? If jobs “have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them” why then is the Pennsylvania unemployment rate around 5%? And does small-town America cling to “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” any more than does Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, Rev. Lee, or all the others that gravitate to Obama, but who are spared the condescending “they” write-off?

Labels: Obama

E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post starts off his column by asking the wrong question:

Let's ask the hard question about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Is he as far outside the African American mainstream as many of us would like to think?

Dionne answers his question:

I cite King not to justify Wright's damnation of America or his lunatic and pernicious theories but to suggest that Obama's pastor and his church are not as far outside the African American mainstream as many would suggest.

I don't doubt that Dionne is correct in his assessment that Wright is not far out of the mainstream of African-American thought. Many black leaders and pastors have essentially shrugged their shoulders at Wright's statements. Those calling Wright's statements fanatical are the usual names: Sowell, Steele, Blackwell, etc.

It is not Dionne's assessment of the African-American mainstream that I question, but why that is relevant. If Obama was seeking to replace Sharpton or Jackson as leader of the African-American community, there would be little reason to object to Wright's statements or Obama's association with Wright. Certainly Sharpton and Jackson regularly espouse similar views.

Yet, Obama is not seeking to be leader of the black community. Obama is seeking to be the elected leader of ALL Americans. Thus, it is insufficient to be in the mainstream of African-Americans if that falls outside the American mainstream. It is insufficient for Obama to be in the mainstream of ANY sub-group of Americans if that is not within the larger mainstream of all Americans. Dionne's sleight of hand tries to legitimize Wright's anti-Americanism by placing it in the mainstream of the black community. However, that skirts the issue of whether Wright's statements fall within the American mainstream. Dionne's failure to ask the correct question betrays its answer, which undoubtedly is no.

Labels: Obama

I agree with Justin...to a point. Obama's speech was a rhetorical gem. It flowed naturally from one topic to the next and made a compelling case for his solutions. I was just left with one question after listening:

So what?

If the problem that Obama was confronting, and the need for the speech, had been general racism or discrimination, this would have been a masterful discourse. However, in my view, the problem was not generalized racism, but Obama's particular association with an extremist. It was the statements by one of Obama's closest confidants for the last 20 years that are particularly at odds with the premise for Obama's campaign. Thus, in addressing race rather than his voluntary association, Obama addressed an issue tangential to the reason for the controversy.

The big problem with his speech is that he either gave generalized denunciations to Wright's statements and then made the moral equivalence argument in several ways: equating non-family members to family members, saying all religious leaders make controversial statements, implying that all controversies are equal, etc. These excuses for his continuing association with Wright, in spite of the problems it has caused, makes me question his judgment more fully.

Don't get me wrong, Obama's campaign was smart in pivoting from Obama's particular associations to racism generally. The news, at least that I've seen, has been gushing over his speech about race and have generally forgotten why he needed to give the speech at all. Wright is glossed over and forgotten as the stations will likely do a week's worth of stories about race in America.

Labels: Obama, race, religion

I have to tell you... I found the speech very engaging and well crafted. We dismiss it blithely at our peril.

Don't get me wrong, there was plenty for conservatives to object to... but the argument which Obama framed up created a compelling narrative (especially during the first half of the speech). Obama's strong condemnation of Rev. Wright coupled with his refusal to cut off his pastor cold turkey cuts a very natural path between the black community looking for vindication and conservative critics looking to catch him in hypocrisy.

If I had to regurgitate it, this is what I heard: "This is the reality of what many blacks believe in America, I don't believe it, but you can't reach out to this group by ignoring them or lambasting them outright. Likewise, my fellow blacks need to condemn the ugly vitriol against whites and fess up the to their own messes. America is full of these contradictions. It makes us stronger when we deal with it."

"Contradictions" is a term that many people can relate to.

As others have noted, the last part of the speech was a liberal boilerplate of good intentions. No surprise there. But the overall tenor of the venue was positive in nature and disarming in effect.

I mean, ask yourself. What was his main goal going in? Dissolve the Wright issue and move it into the win column. Did he accomplish that? I think he did.

Labels: anti-american, Obama, religion

I find it interesting that Barack Obama’s continuing difficulties because of Jeremiah Wright are being framed in the context of two things it is definitely not about: race and religion.

This controversy is not about race. If anyone made the claim, and I have yet to hear it, that Obama is being criticized because of his race they are wrong. It is not the color of Obama’s or Wright’s skin that is the subject of controversy. No rational person would equate Wright’s anti-Americanism with the color of his skin, unless we are to believe that skin color determines nationalistic attitudes (which is patently absurd). It is Wright's inflamatory statements themselves that have engendered controversy and not his skin color. Perhaps Wright would say the two are inseperable, but, again, skin color does not determine the content of character. Thus, those who frame the controversy in the context of race are not navigating the facts, but are pushing a headline that is detached from the story.

Likewise, the controversy is not about religion. Wright’s comments are not theological, but are political. It is not the tenets of Obama’s faith that are in question. No one is asking about his belief in God or his belief in the divinity of Christ or any other doctrinal question. No one has suggested that Obama should be disqualified because of his beliefs in spiritual matters. This is distinct from Mitt Romney’s experience where it was doctrinal differences over such things as the nature of God or post-mortal life that were the subject of controversy. Wright’s statements cannot be resolved by resort to religious sources. The slight convergence with religion that this controversy has is because of Wright’s title and the location of the remarks. Wright is a pastor and the remarks were given in a Church. Those facts alone do not make the controversy about religion. The controversy is about religion only insomuch as Obama proclaims religious belief in the statements that Wright made, something that Obama seems unlikely to do.

Labels: Obama, religion

At a high school this week in Manchester, NH , Barack Obama once again confessed his sins but this time to a group of students. He had previous written about his drug use in his 1995 book, “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance“. Let’s just assume that these students have not read his book. This strange confession came when an adult asked him about his time as a student. There was nothing in the question about past drug use, so why bring it up? It looked like he was waiting for an excuse to mention it. But why? What was the point of him bringing this up at this point in his campaign? He has recently been surging in the polls, gaining on Hillary. My best guess is that it has something to do with the “dirt” Hillary’s campaign denies that they have.

All conspiracy theories aside, Obama at least seems to be preparing everyone for the fact that he is imperfect for some reason. If he is not trying to pre-emptively negate any attack, then perhaps he is just sending the message that he wasted a lot of time being wasted. “Do as I say, not as I do” does not work on anyone under the age of 30. Teenagers instead hear, “You can use drugs and turn out ok. Look at me, I’m running for President. As long as you stop eventually, you’ll be just fine. Experimentation is a part of growing up. I’m sure you’ll grow out of it, everyone does it.” Yesterday, someone told my four year old daughter not to shake a can of soda, so of course the next thing she did was shake the can. This behavior continues in most people well past their teenage years as any parent can attest.

Mitt Romney calls this discussion with students a mistake. Giuliani admires his honesty. This is no surprise. Giuliani certainly has a few skeletons in his own closet and would prefer that people overlook his character flaws. Some people are more imperfect than others. I would like my President to be as close to perfect as possible and set a good example for the youth of our country. Leaders should be held to a higher standard than the people that vote for them.

Scott Allan

Labels: mitt romney, Obama, rudy giuliani

Backyard Conservative has a good take on the "dream" that constitutes Obama.

Labels: Dream, Obama