The Media Hype: Osama’s Death Means Obama’s Re-Election

The Media Hype: Osama’s Death Means Obama’s
Re-Election

May 2nd, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

After the long-awaited death of Osama bin Laden, the media are finally
jubilant – that Barack Obama may get a second term after all.

Reuters led the way within hours of the announcement of the terror
mastermind’s death with a piece entitled, “Snap
Analysis: Bin Laden Death a Political Victory for Obama.”
(You must realize,
to the mainstream media, everything is a political victory for Obama.)
The piece hallucinated that this death would transform Candidate Obama 2.0 from
a fumbling Carteresque failure into an invincible warrior-king:

Republicans have a long-held reputation in U.S. politics for being stronger
than Democrats on national security issues. With this successful operation
taking place under his watch, Obama can grab that mantel from his opponents and
claim it for himself and his party – a potentially game-changing instrument in
his political toolbox.

Of course, bin Laden’s death would have been impossible without intelligence
gathered through policies Obama opposed, campaigned against, and still denounces
and apparently threatens to permanently end. Although having been president when
Osama bin Laden was killed, Americans cannot trust Obama to keep them safe from
Islamic terrorism – especially when nearly
a quarter of them believe he is a Muslim
.

Not to be outdone, Steve Kornacki at Salon.com wrote….

Read
more
.

How Obama plays media like a fiddle

How Obama
plays media like a fiddle

By: John F. Harris and Jim
VandeHei

February 7, 2011 04:44 AM EST


In early November, Barack Obama
was one sad sack of a president — his agenda repudiated by midterm voters, his
political judgment scorned by commentators, his future darkened by a growing
belief he might be a one-time president.

In early February, Obama is
master of the moment — his polls on the
upswing
, his political dexterity applauded by pundits, his status as
Washington’s dominant figure unchallenged even by Republicans.

This
three-month metamorphosis says something about Obama’s survival skills, but the
turnabout says even more about the mainstream media: Obama is playing the press like a fiddle.
(Related: Obama’s latest joint news conference)

He is doing it by
exploiting some of the most long-standing traits among reporters who cover
politics and government — their favoritism for politicians perceived as
ideologically centrist and willing to profess devotion to Washington’s
oft-honored, rarely practiced civic religion of bipartisanship.

Time’s
Mark Halperin has hailed Obama as “magnetic,” “distinguished” and “inspiring” —
in one story. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour saw “Reaganesque” optimism and
“Kennedyesque” encouragement — all in one speech. Howard Fineman, the former
Newsweek columnist who now writes for The Huffington Post, said conductor Obama
was now leading a “love train” through D.C.

Swing voters are swooning
, too. It’s no coincidence. Polls
suggest that many independents have many of the same easily aroused erogenous
zones as reporters — and improved poll numbers lead to more coverage of the
Obama-gets-his-groove-back narrative. (See: Obama’s SOTU challenge to GOP)

Sustaining an effective
governing center over the long term would be a formidable achievement by Obama.
Riding a short-term wave of centrism fever, by contrast, has proved surprisingly
simple.
Here’s how Obama used the MSM to take a fast lane to the middle of
the road.

Bow to Bipartisanship

Conservatives
are convinced the vast majority of reporters at mainstream news organizations
are liberals who hover expectantly for each new issue of The Nation.

It’s
just not true. The majority of political writers we know might more accurately
be accused of centrist bias.

That is, they believe broadly in government
activism but are instinctually skeptical of anything that smacks of ideological
zealotry and are quick to see the public interest as being distorted by
excessive partisanship. Governance, in the Washington media’s ideal, should be a
tidier and more rational process than it is.

In this fantasy, every
pressing problem could be solved with a blue-ribbon commission chaired by Sam
Nunn and David Gergen that would go into seclusion at Andrews Air Force Base for
a week, not coming back until it had a deal to cut entitlements and end
obesity.

Bill Clinton’s best press came when he made a deal with Newt
Gingrich on the budget, and George W. Bush got favorable coverage when he reached a deal
with Ted Kennedy on education reform and in the brief period after Sept. 11 when
the terrorist attacks brought Washington together.

Obama is taking
advantage of the press’s bias for bipartisan process, a preference that often
transcends the substance of any bipartisan policy. (See: GOP, Dem lawmakers sit together)

It was an easy
choice. In the wake of the Democratic rout in November, for instance, it would
have been political suicide to risk letting taxes go up. So Obama shrewdly
ignored his own party’s liberals and made a big show of wanting to cooperate
with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts — and reaped a bonanza of favorable news
stories as a result.

He’s been getting more for his embrace of free trade
in a recent pact with South Korea and his plan to speak Monday to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, with whom he earlier had a high-profile clash.

 

Respect the Village Elders

Most political reporters
live in Washington. So it’s not really surprising that they tend to respect
presidents who show respect for Washington culture, Washington rituals and,
above all, Washington operatives.

Early in his presidency Obama — like
many of his predecessors when they first arrived — was seen as cool or even
hostile to permanent Washington.

After the midterm defeats, it was an
important part of his rehabilitation to be seen as having learned his
lesson.

Among the stops in this process was consulting with eminent
Washington worthies who are themselves veterans of White Houses past. Aides let
it be known that Obama had huddled with Ken Duberstein, a lobbyist who was chief
of staff under Ronald Reagan; John Podesta, who was chief of staff under Clinton
and now runs the Center for American Progress; and Gergen, who doesn’t actually
live in Washington but (so far) has served under four presidents (Nixon, Ford,
Reagan, Clinton) and is the high priest of Washington
bipartisanship.

Let History Drive the
Narrative

Reporters are suckers for comparisons — often glib or
even bogus comparisons — between current and past presidents. Obama and aides
did not much like this habit when he was being regularly compared to Jimmy Carter.

But in recent weeks
Obama has managed to turn the history game to his advantage by ostentatiously
inviting comparisons to two more successful presidents: Reagan and
Clinton.

Neither got terrific coverage while president. Both are viewed
in retrospect as effective two-term presidents who survived and prospered during
their time in Washington.

Obama was seen carrying a copy of Lou Cannon’s
Reagan biography under his arm on vacation. And his aides have happily played
along with stories drawing links between the two — despite oceanwide differences
in ideology, temperament, intellectual habits, personal history and rhetorical
style.

In the category of You Can’t Make It Up, weeks of stories and
columns about the comparison culminated with this cover of Time magazine — “Why
Obama Loves Reagan” — and a manufactured picture of the two men side by side,
smiling optimistically.

Obama couldn’t buy an ad like that.

The
only thing better would have been for all three major networks to call last
month’s State of the Union speech “Reaganesque” for its uplifting tone. He got
that, too.

The Clinton comparisons are a bit trickier, given the
complicated history between the two men and the Obama team’s previous publicly
expressed condescension toward Clinton’s presidency.

But here, too, Obama
let it be known to The New York Times that he was reading Taylor Branch’s book
on Clinton. And he brought Clinton in for a lengthy conversation in December and
even invited him to hold forth in the White House briefing
room.

Meanwhile, the post-midterm White House inner circle looks like a
recycling center for Clinton administration veterans
: Bill
Daley
as White House chief of staff; Bruce
Reed
as the vice president’s chief of staff; Gene Sperling as economic adviser; Jack
Lew
as budget director, and the list goes on.

 

Damn Those Deficits

Reagan may have shown that
deficits don’t matter, as Dick Cheney supposedly said, but the media focus on
deficits as the litmus test for all serious politicians goes on. Reporters love
hearing Obama talk with a furrowed brow about the grave threat of a $14 trillion
pile of debt (even if that politician was responsible for stacking $3 trillion
of it).

If there was one unmistakable takeaway from the elections, it was
that independents were furious with Obama and Democrats for growing government too big, too fast.

“The American
people are absolutely concerned about spending and debt and deficits,” Obama
said at his press conference the day after the midterms. “We already had a big
deficit that I inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession.
As we bring it down, I want to make sure that we’re not cutting into education
that is going to help define whether or not we can compete around the
world.”

John Boehner, likewise, won huge style points for his handling
of this, rhetorically speaking. The Ohio Republican, who is hardly a master of
the public stage, used every speech to talk about cutting spending and went out
of his way to sound and act humble (even as some Republicans were
second-guessing the size of those actual cuts). Mitch McConnell jumped into the act, easing his longtime
opposition to banning earmarks in the Senate.

Obama had little choice but
to steal their rhetoric — and that’s exactly what he did with the State
of the Union speech
, first by leaking word of a five-year spending freeze
(after a two-year spending spree) and then warning in his remarks, “Both parties
in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks in it, I
will veto it. I will veto it.”

Time will tell how serious Obama’s
rhetoric is. In one exception to his recent ride of positive coverage, the
Washington Post editorial page said Obama is not showing enough courage or
candor in tackling budget problems.

Wind Up the Wing
Nuts

Obama could have walked to the House floor and read his
birth certificate, and the State of the Union speech would still have been a big
media and PR success. Two people deserve credit: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Sen. Mark
Udall
(D-Colo.).

Bachmann did Obama the biggest favor by announcing
that she would give her
own tea party response to the speech
. The media jumped on the divided GOP
story (since Boehner and GOP leaders were steamed at her decision), and the
night ended with Bachmann, not GOP leaders, dominating the message. (
Related: Bachmann’s GOP
critics are terrified of her following
)

And Udall gave him the
biggest insurance policy by leading the campaign for Republicans and Democrats to co-mingle in the audience. To a
casual viewer, it seemed like everyone was giving standing applause, even to
Obama’s most partisan remarks.

This is a preview of how easy it could be
for Obama to appear like a centrist for the remainder of the next two years.
With the Bachmann crowd on one side and angry liberals eager to raise money,
membership and their own profile on the other, Obama can plop in
between.

Every gesture, however empty, toward the center will draw a
frothing attack from different sets of liberal outlets. The most visible might
be the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has built a robust e-mail
list and fundraising model by pressuring Obama from the left.

The media
love stories about the internal wars in both parties. Obama, in his new
determination to hold the center, now loves them, too.

Sarah Palin speaks

http://vimeo.com/18698532 to see and hear the video

Sarah Palin speaks

Clarice Feldman

 

Here is a part
of the statement
Sarah Palin issued today, something no one else in her
party (are you listening Governor Pawlenty ?) has had the wit or wisdom to say:

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and
praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled,
then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from
people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s
broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the
American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of
monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals
who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with
those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both
sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise
their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly
voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s
future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would
join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his
party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the
will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power
proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most
cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to
work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you
don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision.
If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But,
especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should
not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and
violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

 
Clarice Feldman

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/sarah_palin_speaks.html
at
January 12, 2011 – 10:13:37 AM CST

//  

Who’s Guilty of Inciting Violence, Mr. President?

Who’s Guilty of Inciting Violence, Mr. President?

January 11th, 2011

Victor Davis Hanson, The Washington Times

Very few Americans are fans of both The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, as 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the purported Tucson killer, apparently was. Fewer still post on the Internet fears about “brainwashing,” “mind control,” and “conscience dreaming”; have long records of public disruption and aberrant behavior; were expelled from community college; or were rejected summarily for military service.

No matter. Almost immediately following Mr. Loughner’s cowardly killing of six and wounding of 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, pundits and some public figures rushed to locate his rampage, together with his paranoid rantings about government control, within the larger landscape of right-wing politics – especially the rhetoric of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Mr. Loughner’s unhinged rants about the “government” indict those who express reasonable reservations about the size of government as veritable accessories to mass murder. The three worst offenders were Paul Daly of the New York Daily News, who claimed just that in an essay with the raging headline “The blood of Congresswoman Giffords was on Sarah Palin’s hands”; the ubiquitous Paul Krugman, who connected Mr. Loughner to the supposedly Republican-created “climate of hate”; and Andrew Sullivan, who thought he saw yet another avenue through which to further his own blind antipathy toward Mrs. Palin and “the Palin forces.” In their warped syllogism, the Tea Party unquestionably creates hatred; a congresswomen was shot out of hatred; ergo, the Tea Party and/or the Republican Party all but pulled the trigger…

There is much talk that Mrs. Palin’s “cross hairs” ad pushed Mr. Loughner over the edge. But if sloppy use of gun metaphors can drive anyone to shoot congressional representatives, think what we are up against when the president of the United States invokes violent imagery to galvanize his supporters. What are we to make of President Obama’s warning of “hand-to-hand combat” if the Republicans take over or of his comment that one of his supporters could “tear [Sean Hannity] up” or his “Untouchables” boast that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or his advice to supporters of his presidential campaign to argue with Republicans and independents and “get in their face”?

Why would a president boast about figuring out “whose ass to kick” or, in a climate of fear about terrorism, call his opponents “hostage takers”? In a post-Sept. 11 world, is it prudent for the commander in chief to say of his political opponents, “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got – they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up”? What about, “But you’ve got to kind of talk to them, ease that finger off the trigger”?

Also, in a political twofer, Mr. Obama once not only evoked gun imagery, but did so in a context of relegating Republicans to second-class citizenry: “We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Read more.

Media Knew Killer Probably Wasn’t Politically Motivated

Media Knew Killer Probably Wasn’t Politically Motivated

January 11th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

The Left has gone out of its way to blame Saturday’s tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords on anyone to the Right of the Mensheviks. Among the first to pile on the blood libel was New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who pinned the shooting on an alleged conservative “climate of hate.” Most of us countered that the murderer, Jared Lee Loughner, clearly seemed mentally ill, addicted to mind-altering drugs, or perhaps the victim of an LSD-induced psychosis. Krugman should read his own newspaper — and I rarely make that suggestion. The NYT reported yesterday that most assassins are unhinged, not politically motivated, and any intelligent American should have known that was the likely motive. That means those accusing Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the Tea Party of facilitating this crime are either unintelligent or transparently politically motivated (or both).

The New York Times reported yesterday, “A 1999 study of assassins and attackers found few common threads. Many had delusional ideas, but few heard voices; still fewer abused drugs or belonged to militant groups.” (Emphasis added.)

To make matters clearer, many of those who appear to kill for a political cause are merely demonstrating symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Forensic psychologist Dr. Michael Stone told the Times the paranoid mind…

Read more.

Killing the Czars: House Republicans Fight Obama’s Executive Power Grab

Killing the Czars: House Republicans Fight Obama’s Executive Power Grab

January 7th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

Congressional Republicans have wasted no time fighting back against Barack Obama’s plan to rule by executive fiat. Only days into their new majority in the 112th Congress, conservatives have introduced measures to end the most egregious offenses: abolishing the unelected system of czars, repealing Net Neutrality regulations, and preventing the EPA from imposing job-killing carbon dioxide standards on power plants. The imperative steps will prevent an imperial overreach and minimize the damage Obama can do the American people. However, if they hope to succeed, Republicans need to move beyond these necessary defense mechanisms and present a coherent and comprehensive program of limited, constitutional government.

Nothing so perfectly encapsulates this president’s push to federalize every aspect of American life better than his team of czars. These multiple dozens of ideologues — unelected and unconfirmed, because they are unelectable and unconfirmable — exercise power in every aspect of our lives from the environment, to domestic violence, to the automobile company we collectively purchased for the UAW. On Wednesday, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-LA, introduced a bill co-sponsored by 28 others to abolish all federal czars. His proposal, which is supported by 28 other Congressmen, would eliminate anyone who….

Read more.

Reward: $100,000 for Full ‘JournoList’ Archive; Source Fully Protected

Reward: $100,000 for Full ‘JournoList’ Archive; Source Fully Protected

by Andrew Breitbart

I’ve had $100,000 burning in my pocket for the last three months and I’d really like to spend it on a worthy cause. So how about this: in the interests of journalistic transparency, and to offer the American public a unique insight in the workings of the Democrat-Media Complex, I’m offering $100,000 for the full “JournoList” archive, source fully protected. Now there’s an offer somebody can’t refuse.

liberal media bias

Yes, the mainstream media that came together to play up the false allegations that the “N-Word” was hurled 15 times by Tea Party participants at the Congressional Black Caucus outside the Capitol the day before the “Obamacare” vote, is the same MSM that colluded to make sure the American public accepted the smear, and refused to show the exculpatory videos that disproved the incendiary charges of Tea Party racism.

Ezra Klein’s “JournoList 400” is the epitome of progressive and liberal collusion that conservatives, Tea Partiers, moderates and many independents have long suspected and feared exists at the heart of contemporary American political journalism. Now that collusion has been exposed when one of the weakest links in that cabal, Dave Weigel, was outed. Weigel was, in all likelihood, exposed because – to whoever the rat was who leaked his emails — he wasn’t liberal enough.

When the “N-word” controversy turned out to be an almost certain falsehood, Weigel had the professional courage to come out against 399 of his “JournoList” peers when he wrote:

I think we’ve seen a paradigm shift, and that the March 20 story will be remembered by conservatives as evidence of how the media accepts attacks on conservatives without due diligence.

Weigel also had the courage to issue a correction and a mea culpa when his reporting was used as a weapon by the unscrupulous Max Blumenthal to falsely smear James O’Keefe as a “racist organizer” of a white nationalist conference. Weigel eventually stepped up and set the record straight when he found out he was falsely named as a witness to the story.

Why was he chosen for outing among 400 “JournoList” participants? I can think of few liberal journalists who have been more fair than Weigel. And if I think that, imagine what true partisans on the left feel about his erratic and ideologically unpredictable output?

Weigel’s career at the Washington Post was assassinated for his crimes against conformity. Try as he might, as a left-leaning journalist he didn’t conform enough. When conservatives jumped on his exposure, he cited defending me as a mitigating alibi. Defending me publicly is a hangable offense in them thar liberal hills!

But Dave Weigel is not the story. The “JournoList” is the story: who was on it and which positions of journalistic power and authority do they hold? Now that the nature and the scope of the list has been exposed, I think the public has a right to know who shapes the big media narratives and how.

Ezra Klein

Dave Weigel is a portal into the dark world of hardcore liberal bias in the media. This opening gives us a deeper insight into the insidious relationship between liberal think tanks, academics and their mouthpieces in the media.

As we already uncovered in our expose on the “Cry Wolf” project, members of academia and think tanks are actively working to form the narrative used by the press to thwart conservative messages. Like a ventriloquist’s dummy, the reporters on the listserv mimicked the talking points invented and agreed upon by the intellectuals who were invited to the virtual cocktail party that was Klein’s “JournoList.”

And let us not forget the participation of Media Matters in the larger picture of intimidation and mockery for any reporter, like Weigel, who dares stray from the one acceptable liberal narrative in the media. Flying its false flag as a “media watchdog,” the $10 million-or-so per year agitprop command center creates and promotes a system of conformity in which it relentlessly attacks anyone who strays from the Soros-funded party orthodoxy.

The deluge of intimidation showered upon the occasional heretic by Media Matters represent another distinct layer in the media infrastructure that ensures true believer liberals are overrepresented and conservatives had better watch their step.

The fact that 400 journalists did not recognize how wrong their collusion, however informal, was shows an enormous ethical blind spot toward the pretense of impartiality. As journalists actively participated in an online brainstorming session on how best to spin stories in favor of one party against another, they continued to cash their paychecks from their employers under the impression that they would report, not spin the agreed-upon “news” on behalf of their “JournoList” peers.

The American people, at least half of whom are the objects of scorn of this group of 400, deserve to know who was colluding against them so that in the future they can better understand how the once-objective media has come to be so corrupted and despised.

We want the list of journalists that comprised the 400 members of the “JournoList” and we want the contents of the listserv. Why should Weigel be the only person exposed and humiliated?

I therefore offer the sum of $100,000 to the person who provides the full “JournoList” archive. We will protect that person’s privacy and identity forever. No one will ever know who became $100,000 richer – and did the right thing, morally and ethically — by shining the light of truth on this seamy underworld of the media.

$100,000 is not a lot to spend on the Holy Grail of media bias when there is a country to save.