Archive for the ‘media’ Category

Two amazing things have taken place:

The Hospital internet is now working!

An Arab language newspaper has come out against the Mosque at Ground Zero:

“I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime. Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?…

“Those pushing to build this mosque may be construction companies, architect firms, or political groups who want to exploit this issue. The individual who submitted the building application – I do not know whether he [really] wants [to build] a mosque that will promote reconciliation, or whether he is [just] an investor looking for quick profits. Because the idea of a mosque right next to a site of destruction is not at all an intelligent one. The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery.

“What the citizens of the U.S. fail to understand is that the battle against the 9/11 terrorists is not their battle. It is a Muslim battle – one whose flames are still raging in more than 20 Muslim countries… I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers, nor do they want a mosque that will become a shrine for the haters of Islam… This has already started to happen: [the Islamophobes] are claiming that a mosque is being built over the corpses of 3,000 U.S. citizens who were buried alive by people chanting ‘Allah akbar’ – the same call that will be heard from the mosque…”

I take exception to the words “Islamophobes, but all in all a piece that acknowledges what MSNBC and CNN and the rest of the “Defend Obama” media can’t or won’t see. (Dana Milbank for example)

Bill Kristol thinks it will be over soon, I hope he’s right.

memeorandum thread here.

The biggest loser here won’t be the president (who was already sinking in the popularity ratings.) or Congressional democrats (who get a great chance to separate themselves from an unpopular president, or the republicans, (who get another talking point) or even the people trying to get the mosque built (who will get concessions for moving it and be celebrated as “tolerant” for doing so)

No the biggest loser is the media who fawned all over the president’s statement, called the American People ignorant bigots for disagreeing and then expect them to not only watch their programs but to take their word on issues.

Of course within their Niche market it might not hurt that much but their days of influencing the mass of Americans is rapidly and thankfully drawing to a close.

Update: Case in point

When did we stop praising politicians for doing what is right even when it’s not politically expedient?” she asked rhetorically. Suggesting that it was unjust for them to suffer political consequences since “the reason everybody is groaning all the time about our politicians is because they’re such hacks and nobody stands up for what’s right,” she concluded saying that “somebody has to say that we’re not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked us”– suggesting that the people who oppose its construction are, to some extent, the moral equivalent to those who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Her point seemed to have been that religious intolerance was behind both sentiments, but the issue is already heated enough without constructing this kind of analogy.

I wasn’t up early enough to see this on Morning Joe or I would have mentioned it.

…no not on the right and wrong of the mosque, but he is correct that Gingrich is more about selling books and becoming a permanent voice.

That doesn’t mean that Newt doesn’t believe that the mosque is wrong but he is taking advantage of this for other reasons.

Pat is also right bringing up Sarah Palin likely “Neut”-tralizing Gingrich if she runs.

What Joe hasn’t figured out is that Americans understand this position and what it means, but the elites can’t wrap their heads around it because of their sensitivity meters. Joe understands and says that most Americans would like to see the mosque elsewhere but doesn’t dare vocalize why the majority of Americans aren’t bigots or ignorant for that opinion so.

I was taking my mother with me to visit my son in the Hospital yesterday and I mentioned the president’s position and the level of disgust she had for the president was incredible on this issue.

His previous positions had already caused her to leave the Democratic party that she had been part of for over 60 years. As part of the WW 2 generation this hits her where she lives.

Pity the media who want to support their man in the White House but really can’t tell their customer base what they actually think of them.

The moment I said this Chuck Todd suggests the American People “Aren’t mature enough.” This is what is lovingly called a “gaffe” actually saying what you think aloud.

We knew the Mosque issue was going to be all over the news.

Morning Joe has been a shield in front of the president all Morning vocally defending the president without hesitation on the NY Mosque issue.

But defense is not enough so they decided to counterattack, however Who they choose to attack says a lot about what they think.

This weekend on on Facebook Sarah Palin said this:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

A clear, lucid statement from one of the leading contenders if not THE leading contender for the Republican Nomination in 2012. A person who was on a National Ticket just 2 years ago.

Normally Sarah Palin means views and hits so naturally they would be injecting her whenever possible…

…but this statement would win votes, so we can’t have that.

Instead they are going after Newt Gingrich for saying it is like “putting a Swastika next to the Holocaust museum” (they don’t manage to quote him saying: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.” too many people would get that), and are touting him both as a voice of intolerance and as the republican front runner.

Let’s cut to the chase. Newt Gingrich is no more going to be the Republican nominee in 2012 that I am. These people know this, but pretend otherwise.

This is simply political cover, cover for Obama’s statements and covering up Sarah Palin’s statements so a weak White House doesn’t have to respond.

One of the first principles of when you have something to hide is that sunlight tends to cause annoyance.

Nick Green is seriously annoyed:

Some believe you have a particular bias or agenda if you refuse to cover a story. Some people believe the fact that you decide to cover a story means you have some sort of bias.

In short, you can’t win either way.

So imagine my surprise today to find I’m the victim of an Andrew Beitbart wannabe, a blogger with a clear agenda of his own who has decided in his hypocrisy I have one of my own.

I had intended to leave comment there but as the page keeps erroring out I will post here something here instead.

Nick, you are a reporter who is paid to do this for a living, so perhaps you might be unaware of a few things, so allow me a mere blogger to educate you on a few things:

Robert Stacy McCain is a reporter who also blogs, he has been a reporter for a very long time. If you were familiar with his work you would know this. I on the other hand am a blogger who writes a few articles on occasion. If you want to call anyone an “Andrew Breitbart wannabe” it would be me not him. Oh an although he is a big boy Robert Stacy is a personal friend of mine so I take it ill if you wish to disparage him for telling the truth.

Oh and BTW “Andrew Breitbart Wanabee” is not a pejorative outside of your circle. He is successful, runs several sites with many writers working under him and manages to do that in the teeth of a media that hates him. Yeah I’d be Andrew Breitbart like a shot.

“Blogger” is not a pejorative term either, no matter how much you want it to be. Bloggers have been breaking stories that the Mainstream Media (that would be you) have ignored for the last decade. One prominent Example, John Edwards Story by Mickey Kaus, he was on it for a year when the rest of the media couldn’t care less. Bloggers with video camera have been covering stories that the MainStream media have ignored or spun for years. Another story that you guys never bothered to cover. The interesting procedures for verifying credit card donations by the Obama camp during the 2008 election.

What? You never heard of it? Neither did your readers because the MSM (that would be you) choose not to cover the story. The lawyers/bloggers did instead.

Yes Robert Stacy McCain is a conservative, I am a conservative, in fact I am a registered (gasp) republican! There is a long tradition of “partisian” journalism that has existed since day one of newspapers. Perhaps you missed that day in school or attended public schools. Either way I don’t keep my biases secret. People can choose to talk to me or not on that basis, and can judge my coverage of events such as the MayDay march in Boston accordingly, vs reporters who hold off the record lunches with the White house they are supposed to cover.

Now as to the e-mails, as Robert Stacy said there are occasions when people e-mail in anger but you must get a whole lot more e-mail than me. If I get an e-mail I don’t want I delete it. It’s real simple. I don’t have your experience but people you burn tend to no longer talk to you. When your primary job is to get people to talk to you, even if they don’t want to that would be “bad”.

Finally I actually should be grateful to you, thanks to your e-mail and torrid schedule I was not only able to get an excellent and popular post. But was able to score an interview with the candidate that you had no time for from 3000 miles away, get a second post and a column in the examiner out of it. Now I don’t know you as a person, you might be a nice guy and a hard worker, but if you want to keep dropping the ball on the Mattie Fein campaign, I’ll do what I can by phone to pick it up from the bay state.