Senator Marco Rubio is a bona fide political star able to communicate his ideas and vision with an eloquence few can match. He’s also Hispanic and a Republican, which freaks the left out — and by “left,” I of course mean the mainstream media.

The media’s biggest fear is Obama losing his upcoming reelection, and Rubio is the kind of VP candidate that keeps the corrupt MSM up at night. Not only could he help swing the all-important Hispanic vote into GOP territory; he also hails from the all-important swing state of Florida.

The nightmare scenario for Obama’s MSM Palace Guards is this attractive, articulate young man taking it to Obama on the campaign trail while wrapped in the mantle of history as the very first Hispanic nominated as vice president.

Unfortunately, the MSM is corrupt but not dumb, which is why over the last few months we’ve seen two major pushes from two major news outlets to discredit, toxify, and marginalize Rubio. Oh, and both of those stories were riddled with factual errors that we’re assured were nothing more than honest mistakes.

The first hit came from The Washington Post back in October. Their information was so blatantly wrong that early one Saturday morning I caught them red-handed quietly scrubbing away their mistakes from the hit piece. This is what I wrote at the time:

(more…)

Buried in the middle of this article posted at ABC’s The Note, you will find, in my humble opinion, the real news in this story, and it’s likely buried because it’s horrible, terrible, not-so-very good news for the MSM’s Precious One:

CNN/ORC poll asked voters who they saw as best able to “get the economy moving.” Just 40 percent chose Obama, while 53 percent picked Romney.

This is major news for two reasons. First, Barack Obama sits at a lowly 40% on what is going to be the most important question of this campaign. Secondly, Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, is polling over 50% on this question. 

What else is 2012 going to be about? I know the MSM is going to try and sell what’s left of their souls to make it about anything else, but good luck with that.

(more…)

Yesterday, NPR reported an unclear snippet of audio as former Senator Rick Santorum having said the word “black” when discussing individuals becoming dependent on government’s redistribution of wealth, as opposed to being able to go out and earn their money themselves.

As per Tommy Christopher at Mediaite, a new, cleaner version of the clip does not support that conclusion.

NPR’s Ted Robbins noted: “Santorum did not elaborate on why he singled out blacks who rely on federal assistance. The voters here didn’t seem to care.”

CBS doubled down on the error, offering a brief transcript with the clip:

While campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa Sunday, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said if elected he plans to cut regulations and entitlements and he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

(more…)

A narrative growing around former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is that he avoids right-of-center news outlets. A few weeks ago, the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis stood by a piece the Romney camp disputed that took issue with the fact that only left-wing news outlets received any attention on one particular conference call. And in recent months both Brett Baier and Chris Wallace of Fox News have made an issue over the Governor’s apparent reluctance to show up for a grilling on their respective shows (though Romney did eventually make an appearance with both).

Today, the Daily Caller repeats a familiar refrain:

Romney last week granted one-on-one interviews in Iowa to both MSNBC and the Huffington Post, among the best-known sources of news for liberals in the country. In recent weeks, he also gave interviews to The Washington Post, The New York Times and Politico.

It’s a peculiar strategy for someone who has had trouble convincing conservatives throughout this race he’s one of them.

The Romney campaign runs a tight ship when it comes to media access. Unlike other candidates who can be more open at campaign stops, Romney will only answer questions from reporters during organized media availabilities. …

Romney’s campaign has refused multiple times over the last year to provide the former Massachusetts governor for an interview with The Daily Caller.

There is, I think, an important difference between a candidate and an elected official. If you’re president of the United States or the local dog catcher, you have an obligation to meet with the press, even the hostile press. You are, after all, representing all of the people once you take office. A candidate, though, is a different story. Their job is to win as many votes as possible and, yes, to manipulate the media to their own advantage. In fact, how well a Republican candidate does or doesn’t manage the media frequently means the difference between a loss or a win. Democrats, of course, almost always have the media wind at their backs.

(more…)

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman/Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is feeling the heat from a formidable opponent, Republican Karen Harrington, in her battle to keep Florida’s 20th Congressional District seat.

Several weeks back, Wasserman Schultz was interviewed by the Spanish-language network Univision and was directly asked if she thought her congressional seat was “safe” in the forthcoming 2012 elections. Wasserman Schultz appeared unnerved by the question and it likely caused her to pivot back to her typical talking points and assert that the candidates running in the Republican primary in Florida’s 20th Congressional District are “very focused on the agenda of the Tea Party” and “that’s not a reflection of the values of this district.”

Screenshot. ‘Someone’ complained about the video, so our friends over at Univision asked us to take down the video. We took the video down as a courtesy.

The Shark Tank removed the video in question from its site after somebody from Wasserman Schultz’s campaign or congressional office complained to the network as a courtesy to Univision.  Fast forward a few weeks later, and lo and behold, the Politico runs a two-part story on who could have leaked the video to the Shark Tank.  Coincidence?  You be the judge. Politico: Part 1 Part 2.

(more…)

MSM fact-checkers are an absolute cancer on our political process, a cynical and partisan conceit created by the left-wing media that allows them to arbitrarily judge what is and is not the truth, all in an effort to bring down Republicans and boost Democrats. I won’t even mince words here, the Politifacts and Anderson Cooper’s “Keeping Them Honest,” and the like must be exposed and neutralized. Conservative media and anyone else interested in truth and objective reporting must get the word out about this charade.

Good heavens, the “Pulitzer Prize winning” Politifact has gone so far as to protect Obama from “Saturday Night Live.”

No, really.

During the 2008 campaign, I watched in awe as fact-checking became a very effective weapon against the McCain-Palin camp. Get as angry as you want at this insidious practice, but the invention was pure genius. By disguising their left-wing agendas as “facts” and “truth,” these MSM fact-checkers allowed the left-wing media to turn every Republican criticism aimed at Obama into a backfire.

It goes a little something like this:

1. Republicans launch an effective attack.

2. Obama’s Media Palace Guards find a way to call that attack dishonest.

3. Obama’s Media Palace Guards then make the so-called dishonesty the issue.

4. *Poof* the narrative immediately turns from criticism of Obama into the dishonesty of Republicans.

5. That narrative lasts for days, putting our side on defense and off message.

If that particular scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it’s already happening in this campaign.

(more…)

Wednesday, I came across this Columbia Journalism Review interview with Politico’s Ben Smith, in which he describes his work in this context:

The news cycle now is about these tiny segments, and I think my stuff is what people are talking about in any given segment reasonably often. Scoops speak for themselves. If you have some new piece of information, it gets passed around and it’s fun to see people discovering something because you broke it. It’s one of the basic rewards of journalism in some way, I think. To tell people stuff they didn’t know.

For those of you who don’t know, Smith has a blog at Politico all to himself, was a member of the infamous Journolist, and would prefer to be seen as an objective journalist with no agenda one way or another.

It was just a coincidence that I came across that interview on the same day I was thinking about writing a piece responding to a “scoop” Smith had posted the day before:

‘Rudy’ writer: Newt no Rudy

Newt Gingrich’s campaign yesterday pulled the soundtrack from the film “Rudy” from his campaign ad after I asked about the copyright, though they didn’t respond directly to questions about whether they had the rights to use it online.

I heard today from the film’s writer and producer, Angelo Pizzo, who expressed his dismay that Gingrich would associate himself with the movie.

“I think what the movie’s about and what Newt’s about are at polar opposites,” he said. “One thing about the character of Rudy: He’s always consistent in his purpose, his philosophy, and his goal, and he does it honestly and straightforward. He was a person of absolute ethical and moral integrity, and I think Newt is anything but that.  He’s all over the map on any number of issues.”

At first glance that might seem like a frivolous story, but there’s a method to Smith’s madness at work here. Gingrich is on the rise, and the MSM loves to pull Republicans off message for a day every time some musician whines about his or her music being used without permission by a campaign.

This is Smith doing what Smith does so well: tossing chaff at a Republican, creating a distraction-narrative over nonsense, all in the apparent hope of getting the campaign off-track and off-message.

(more…)

To anyone paying attention, the so-called Birther, or birth certificate controversy, surrounding those misguided rumors that questioned whether or not President Obama had been born in this country, was a controversy both Obama and his MSM allies loved and maliciously stoked to keep alive. For them, it was a beautiful issue that gave them a racial brush with which to tar all Republicans and, better still, it worked as the perfect distraction to keep conservatives off message and on defense. For example, NBC’s David Gregory demands Congressman Eric Cantor take a firm stand against Birthers, and when he isn’t harsh enough to please a leftist like Gregory, that becomes the only story that comes out of a full-length “Meet the Press” interview.

All part of the plan.

And for a number of years it worked, at least until Donald Trump finally slew the Birther Dragon by turning the issue into such a negative for Obama, he was forced to finally act. After the President produced the very same birth certificate the MSM had assured us he could never get, the scalded media then attempted to spin it into a win for Obama, when in reality both they and the White House had just lost a powerful weapon both were counting on to reelect Obama. Without the shiny toy of Birtherism, conservatives might actually be allowed to get their 2012 message out and the country might actually have a discussion about Obama’s dismal record.

Today, Obama’s Media’s Palace Guards are desperately searching for new methods of distraction. So desperate are they that Politico’s Ben Smith and Slate’s Dave Weigel (both former members of the infamous Journolist) now have a regular cottage industry in coming up with anti-GOP nonsense distractions (today’s journolisting provides two perfect examples). But as diligent as those two are (What Fast and Furious?), they obviously aren’t enough.

Which helps to explain this insipid nonsense:

Many Republicans, however, don’t regard government jobs as actual jobs, and are eager to see them disappear. Republican governors around the Midwest have aggressively tried to break the power of public unions while slashing their work forces, and Congressional Republicans have proposed paying for a payroll tax cut by reducing federal employment rolls by 10 percent through attrition. That’s 200,000 jobs, many of which would be filled by blacks and Hispanics and others who tend to vote Democratic, and thus are considered politically superfluous.

Believe it or not, that’s a Sunday New York Times’ editorial attempting to make the case that wanting smaller government is, yep, racist.

Does the New York Times really believe that?

Of course not. The Times’ editorial is an obvious political tactic, not a serious policy position. The Times is intentionally toying with us, hoping to make us angry and put us on defense. ’Racist’ is the new ‘Birther.’

(more…)

We’re already seeing how desperate the Left and their MSM allies are as 2012 nears, the economy sputters, Dems abandon ship, and Obama’s poll numbers continue to stay in the cellar.

Just last week, just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Obama campaign and their MSM pals went apoplectic with phony outrage over an ad released by Governor Mitt Romney. The only real mistake the Romney ad made was a tactical one in that it gave Obama and his Media Palace Guards the ammunition they crave to to keep the focus on anything other than Obama’s failed record. Later, Democrats went even further and attempted to call the Romney ad — you guessed it — racist. The reasoning is so stupid I won’t waste your time, but The Hill has more.

Now Slate wants us to believe that the ad below, which quite accurately attaches Mass. Senator Scott Brown’s challenger Elizabeth Warren to Occupy Wall Street, is — you guessed it — sexist.

Judge for yourself:

—–

Slate’s absurd rationale:

The Crossroads GPS ad against Elizabeth Warren works not just by portraying her as radically liberal, but by implying that she is unhinged. After showing chaotic scenes of angry young mobs and what looks like a street explosion, and noting that protestors “support radical redistribution of wealth and violence,” the ad cuts to a clip of Warren’s “class warfare” speech, with the volume turned way down, so that the viewer cannot hear the warmth in her voice or the substance of her argument. She is gesticulating strenuously, and the scene implies passion without reason.

Images of female candidates looking angry or self-righteous are a staple of negative ads; the implication seems to be that they are out of control, overtaken by their own emotions and, utterly unfit for office. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid showed his opponent Sharron Angle first smiling sweetly, and then with her face contorted with feeling. “Not just extreme,” the ad intones: “dangerous.”

What’s going on here is that in collusion with their media allies, Democrats are attempting to make Republicans gunshy about launching ads that effectively criticize and define them. Everything in the Warren ad is true and even after you read Slate’s nonsense, there’s not a single frame that comes close to crossing any kind of line.

But the MSM’s tactics here are not about truth or clarity or informing the public; they are about distracting from the issues that should define the 2012 election.

(more…)

What an insufferably smug and small human being Carol Costello is proving herself to be. But she fits perfectly with the increasingly insufferable and smug CNN. Yesterday Costello was all about this and today she openly mocks Michele Bachmann’s faith. In the clip below, you can see how proud she is of herself and that she can hardly wait to get back to the CNN break room to brag over it:

CNN is obviously okay with this kind of behavior, which reflects more on them than this vicious mean girl they hired. After all, Costello looks to me like just another dim bulb CNN plucked from the MSNBC chandelier.  This was a deliberate choice CNN management made.

Oh, and both Costello and CNN owe Rep. Bachmann an apology. A big one. But because neither possesses a tenth of the class Bachmann does, it’s a waste of time to even ask for one.

(more…)

This news is actually good.  PolitiFact was built to allow the MSM to present their own left-wing opinions as objective truth, so by teaming up with the notoriously left-leaning welfare queens at NPR, it only helps to further expose this biased “fact-checker” for what it really is.

Today from PolitiFact:

To help you sort out the truth in the avalanche of claims from the 2012 campaign, PolitiFact and NPR are partnering for Message Machine, a year-long venture to highlight the candidates’ exaggerations and falsehoods.

Reporters from PolitiFact and our nine state sites will be checking claims that candidates and political groups make in TV and radio ads, Facebook messages, tweets and robocalls. We’ll focus largely on the presidential campaign, but we’ll also examine claims from races for governor and the U.S. House and Senate.

We’ll publish our Truth-O-Meter articles on PolitiFact and NPR.org, and we’ll keep an archive of them on our NPR/PolitiFact Message Machine page. NPR will air segments about our fact-checking on Morning Edition, All Things Considered and other shows.

Our first batch of Message Machine items includes a mix of TV commercials, online videos and Web ads.

PolitiFact would never dream of teaming with Human Events or Townhall, two respected right-of-center outlets. No, for 2012, it wants to stick its fingers in the eyes of the right as they join in partnership with an outlet we both distrust and dislike.

When it comes to the MSM, arrogance always trumps credibility. Besides, were PolitiFact to actually team up with the right it might end up living up to its name, and then what would Obama do?

(more…)

Speculation has been running wild over who leaked what to whom in the Cain-sexual harassment allegations story in the last 24 hours. Frankly, who cares? If it were leaked by a Republican or a Democrat operative is the least important part of the story because it would’ve come out eventually if Cain won the nomination. What matters is what the actual allegations were, which no one seems to remember, and whether or not they were true, which no one can prove. So the story itself is in limbo and would probably have faded away in a day or two…until yesterday.

The Cain campaign, already having a bad week on the PR front, was desperate for a topic change. Who can blame them? They can’t rebut vague charges, so they find themselves preemptively trying to rebut fog. Out of that fog, however, came this sort of six degrees of Kevin Bacon charge that, if you connect enough dots, leads to the Perry campaign. That’s where you lose me.

What would Perry have to gain by bringing up these allegations? Not much.

Yes, Cain rose in the polls while Perry sunk, but they’re just polls. And Perry lost his support through poor debate performances, Cain didn’t win them over through strong ones. And a lot of Perry’s support, as tenuous as it was, went to Newt Gingrich too, so harming Cain wouldn’t necessarily bring support back to Perry. Especially since that support was so weak that a few less than stellar debate performances could lose it in the first place.

As garbage as the original Politico story was, with no specifics and second-hand speculation, the Cain campaign’s accusations against Perry are equally weak.

Herman Cain couldn’t remember much of anything, then suddenly he remembers telling one guy, and only one guy, who worked for him 2003 about these allegations? Wouldn’t you remember more about the allegations against you, since they have the power to really harm you, more than you’d remember telling one guy who now happens to work for one of your opponents?

While Perry has little to gain by back-channel attacking Cain, Cain’s campaign has much to gain by attacking Perry. Perry has been slipping in the polls more and more every day. Something like launching an attack on a fellow Republican with flimsy charges could be the deathblow.

Since there is absolutely nothing to report on the actual allegations front, no one involved is able or willing to talk, there’s a vacuum. And the media abhor a vacuum.

The Cain campaign wants a distraction, they’re desperate for one. So-called journalists, who’ve done nothing but print rumors in the first place, are desperate for anything to write, desperate for attention. All they had to do was find a few desperate enough to print something that in a normal news cycle would’ve been laughed out of the newsroom, and pow! subject changed.

Republicans were already vocal about their anger, publicly blaming Democrats for the non-story leak in the first place. That anger could have presented itself as an opportunity looking to knock out one of the top-monied contenders.

Why wouldn’t they?

If you think about it, the Cain campaign really had nothing to lose. The “story” they broke yesterday was founded upon wild, even irresponsible, speculation, just like the original. If a Perry operative they accused had leaked it, they would naturally deny it. If a Perry operative the accused hadn’t leaked it, they would naturally deny it. It was the perfect storm of knowing that the response would be the same regardless of the truth. Denials, especially in the political world, are always looked at with a jaundiced eye, as Cain learned this week. Why not turn the tables on an opponent?

It might not be as calculated as this, it might not be a well thought out strategy, it could just be amateurs wildly grasping at straws. But in today’s “journalism” culture, where proof is secondary to being first and getting media hits, it was a safe risk to take.

(more…)

I ask what are we going to do about it? There’s no doubt that the MSM is in the tank for the Dems. That knowledge and a six pack will get me a buzz.

You’re connected and have a platform. Put the question out to all the folks who read your posts, “How do we combat this extreme bias?”

The alternate media does a great job but there are a TON of really intelligent people who are too busy earning a living to research things. How do we reach these people, most of whom are “Your father’s Democrats”?

The answer to this question is simple: Don’t stand for it.

I was a liberal until about 1991, and what a shocker it was to discover that the very same media I had no problems with prior to seeing the light was now filled with lies, propaganda, half-truths, and any number of parlor tricks intentionally set up to destroy our side. Unless you lived through it, you can’t imagine how frustrating it was to sit through the ‘92 election unable to do anything about the corrupt MSM’s partisan crusade to elect Bill Clinton.

Keep in mind that this was before the Internet, before email, before Andrew Breitbart, before Twitter, before Fox News, and before talk radio was the force that it is today. At the time, the only person going on television and aggressively exposing this injustice and saying the things I wanted to say was one of my few living heroes, The Mighty Brent Bozell.

The good news is that it’s not 1992 anymore and you no longer have to sit around frustrated waiting for someone else to speak for you. Best of all, you also aren’t in a position where you have to put all the effort into composing a letter of complaint hoping some newspaper will print it.

If you want to do something about media bias — which is doing something for America — use the Internet. Also…

Use us.

Help us. (more…)

—–

What good is a self-appointed truth squad that appears in a national news segment like this merely to call the top-three GOP candidates “mostly” liars? Oh, and what about one that doesn’t bother to fact-check even a single Democrat?

Whether at times I agree with them or not makes no difference. Overall, these insidious left-wing “truth squads” are almost always used to allow the leftist MSM to beat our candidates senseless using some other leftist’s version of the truth as their “objective” weapon. Back in April, I wrote at length about the danger of these partisan organizations disguised as objective fact-checkers:

This is the same PolitiFACT that defended Obama from a SNL skit. The same PolitiFACT that somehow determined Obama’s failed stimulus “saved” a million jobs. The same PolitiFACT who just got busted by our own Charlie Sykes for using a Soros-funded source in an attempt to discredit him. In fact, PolitiFact’s lies and biases are so bountiful, they’ve kept a whole website in business devoted to chronicling them. They also won a Pulitzer, which should tell you everything you need to know.

The CNN segment above is a perfect example of how CNN and the rest of the MSM intend to use these “fact checkers” against our side throughout 2012, just as they did throughout 2008. Watch the entire clip again and ask yourself why only three Republicans are targeted. Is CNN trying to tell us that President Obama hasn’t said anything lately that could’ve been included in this segment? What about Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden?

What about Eric Holder?

And when you watch the segment again, pay extra special attention to how PolitiFact gets super-literal in order to claim Mitt Romney’s statement about being able to move a factory to another state  is “false.”

Everyone understands what Romney meant by that statement, but by cherry-picking their own context (in this case, an absurdly literal one) in which to gauge his statement by, PolitiFact can call him a liar.

(more…)

Along with their White House pals, the MSM is currently freaking out over the prospect of Obama losing his bid for reelection and nowhere is that more apparent than on the “Today Show” where, out of whole cloth (or not — more on this below), they’ve decided to float a narrative that says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might be replacing Vice President Joe Biden on the Democrat’s 2012 ticket.

Like the rest of America, the “Today Show” is looking at President Obama’s lousy poll numbers, brewing White House scandals, and one lousy jobs report after another. But unlike, oh, 62% of Americans, the MSM is panicked at the thought of Obama not winning a second term. And since the President has already failed and is unlikely to un-fail over the next 13 months, the MSM is looking for what’s known in the political business as a game-changer.

And so, the charlatans disguised as journalists over at NBC are trying to craft one:

The White House is getting irked about persistent speculation in the media that President Obama might dump Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running mate in 2012 in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

After hosts of NBC’s “Today” show questioned both Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton on consecutive days about a possible switch, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer posted this on his Twitter account Tuesday morning:

“I have noticed a weird @todayshow obsession with faux story of Sec. Clinton replacing @VP…Have asked both about it last 2 days on the show.”

This is also a welcome distraction for NBC. This kind of ginned-up speculation allows the “Today Show” to pretend the biggest political story of the day is anything but Fast and Furious, Solyndra, and another lousy jobs report issued just this morning. MSM-created distractions are a very large part of the MSM’s 2012 gameplan.

But is this really just the desperate MSM acting desperate and is the White House really as put-out over this as they seem?

(more…)

—–

When first asked about the issue, there were no doubt 50 better ways Herman Cain could’ve responded when presented with the non-story of an offensive word on a rock Rick Perry’s family painted over decades ago. But to his credit, Cain quickly recovered by accepting Governor Perry at his word and urged the media to move on. But if you watch the clip above, what you’ll see is that Chuck Todd, “NBC Nightly News,” and the MSM as a whole aren’t anywhere near ready to move on. Cain obviously wants to talk about jobs and all Obama’s Media Palace Guards want to talk about is how racist Rick Perry is. Bottom line: they want to get as many days as they can out of this narrative for one reason and one reason only…

To protect Obama.

Whether the MSM is burying Perry in this nonsense or badgering Herman Cain about it, what’s not happening — what’s not being talked about on the news or by the GOP candidates — is the one thing Obama’s media pals don’t want talked about, Obama’s failure as a job creator and the brewing scandals surrounding Mexican gun-running and Solyndra. So…

Distract. Distract. Distract.

The MSM intends to keep these types of  silly narratives coming for the next 15 months and they intend to keep them aimed at any potential threat to Obama’s re-election. And if you’ll notice, this distraction game-plan isn’t just trained on Perry but also Cain. As you’ll see in this news report, NBC “selectively edited” Cain’s comments to focus on the racial distraction. We have no idea what Cain might have said about unemployment or creating jobs or anything else. In other words, Cain isn’t able to get his message out.

(more…)

There are threats to the political power held by the left (and therefore the media) and then there are THREATS. In their quest to unseat a failed president and undo ObamaCare, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are threats. Herman Cain on the other hand, is a THREAT, an existential threat to the Left for the very same reasons Sarah Palin is an existential threat: he’s conservative and not a white male.

Does this sound like a “Pizza Man” to you?

The mainstream  media is perfectly comfortable running against middle-aged white guys. Sure, Perry or Romney could win the presidency, but with them in office the comfortable boilerplate remains in place and reassures the media that the Left will live to fight and win another day. More importantly, all the tools remain safely in place to win that day; cynical, un-American wedge issues such as race and gender — for these wedge issues also happen to be the very same issues that hold the fractured left-wing coalition together; and a one percentage loss this way or another could bring the Democratic Party down forever. 

And that’s what I mean by an “existential threat” and that’s why the craven media so venomously attacks apostates whose very existence threatens to make the scales fall from the left-wing eyes of those who only know they’re supposed to be disenfranchised but don’t really understand why. Clarence Thomas must be marginalized and destroyed. He cannot become a black role model … he’s conservative. Sarah Palin must be relentlessly whack-a-moled until she just goes away … she’s conservative. And now we have the media going right at Herman Cain and his many impressive accomplishments. 

(more…)

No surprises from Washington Whispers:

A new study by a conservative media watchdog group finds that the big three TV network’s morning shows are far more biased against the current GOP presidential field than they were to Democrats running in the 2008 election. What’s more, the Republicans challenging President Obama are facing caustic questions and getting less airtime than Democrats did four years ago.

The key points from the Media Research Center’s review of 53 weekday morning news interviews from January 1 to September 15:

• By a 5-to-1 margin, ABC, CBS, and NBC morning show hosts employed an adversarial liberal agenda when questioning this year’s Republican candidates.
• Four years ago, Democratic candidates faced questions that tilted more than two-to-one to the left, a far friendlier agenda for liberal politicians.
• In 2007, Democratic candidates were frequently tossed softball questions. This year’s interviews with Republicans have been much more caustic, with few chances for the candidates to project a warm and fuzzy image.
• Four years ago, top Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were given massive donations of airtime by ABC in the form of “town hall” meetings on Good Morning America. None of this year’s Republican contenders have been given a similar opportunity.

The study is due out tomorrow and was provided in advance to Whispers, It was written by Rich Noyes and Geoff Dickens of the Media Research Center which charts alleged bias of major TV networks.

(more…)

After last week’s GOP debate I was pretty furious with Governor Mitt Romney over his demagoguery of Social Security at Rick Perry’s expense. But after some time to cool down (a little) and a few days to see how this approach has played out, I’m starting to think Romney might be the candidate I’ve been waiting for. Not based on his record (I’m still VERY undecided), but based on what I believe is priority number one for our GOP nominee.

You’ve heard me say this before and throughout the upcoming election season you will hear me say it again and again and again: Defeating Barack Obama is not a problem. In every respect, he’s a failed president and there’s no way he can run on his dismal record and there’s no way he alone can toxify his opponent into something unelectable. But the media can, and that’s exactly what they have planned for us. And because I’m so sure of this, one of the priority qualities I’m looking for in our nominee is that they fully comprehend that the media is their most threatening political enemy and that they have a plan in place to neutralize them.

After their resounding defeat last week in New York and Nevada they might now be retooling, but it was pretty obvious beforehand that the Left’s 2012 game plan was to haul out that great big boogeyman known as Mediscare. And judging from his positioning in last week’s debate, Romney appears to have read those tea leaves and found a way to inoculate himself.

By assuming the position of The Mighty Social Security Defender through the ruthless beating of Rick  Perry, Romney made it awfully difficult for Obama and his MSM allies to paint him as someone eager to dismantle this, yes, immoral Ponzi scheme. That was a pretty shrewd outmaneuvering of the Left on the Governor’s part and my anger at him was lessened somewhat as I imagined Democrats and the offices of Politico and the New York Times deflate just a bit as they realized a GOP front-runner might have just become bullet-proof on this particular issue.

(more…)