Archive for the ‘media’ Category

…at David Horowitz News Real Blog about the sudden invisibility of Shirley Sherrod and that’s this.

From what I’ve seen of Andrew Breitbart he is a great poker player, but looking closer and closer at the Sherrod case he might just be a chess player too.

You will recall he was very careful about the release of the ACORN tapes spacing them out and getting the media to fall into trap after trap until ACORN was a broken organization.

Also recall that Breitbart is a totally intergrated web person who worked regularly with Matt Drudge before venturing out on his own. He knows the web well, and that he had the initial video stuff months before he used it.

Is it reasonable to think that he would not have googled this woman? In just a few weeks enough info has come out about her that she has become radioactive. Can one assume that before his initial (and still ignored) column Brietbart or his assistants would have done the same research that others have done and been aware of the trap that the media was being setup for?

Breitbart Nailed the NAACP and the White house, but people forget, they are not his primary targets overall (although he does say in this case the NAACP was). The media is and always has been the wall that he has been chipping away at.

To what degree was this a media trap and with the deification and disappearance of Shirley Sherrod from that national conscience did he manage to make his media case after all?

What do you think?

During the Atlanta campaign W. T. Sherman used flanking maneuver after flanking maneuver to push Joe Johnson back through Georgia. The one exception was Kennesaw Mountain where his frontal assaults were repulsed. After that defeat, he went back to the flanking tactic that took To paraphrase Ken Burns from The Civil War “Sherman never admitted it was a mistake but never did it again”. Like Sherman in the early days of the campaign Sarah Palin made some mistakes dealing with the media, also like Sherman, she didn’t let those early defeats stop her demonstrating why she is invaluable to conservatives.

When the media attacks Palin doesn’t sit and take it, or play under their rules, she counterattacks:

Yesterday, PolitiFact.com fact-checked my statement about the coming $3.8 trillion Obama tax hike – the largest tax increase in history. They did such a bad job of it, however, that I feel compelled to fact-check the fact-checkers.

And because her primary method of counterattack is Facebook that means she can answer on her terms. Try and twist a soundbite out of that:

Unfortunately for PolitiFact, no such proposal exists. They admit as much, by the way, when they state that “There are no formal congressional proposals yet to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so we don’t have precise estimates from official sources like the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” That doesn’t stop them, though, from claiming I “confuse the issue” by “using numbers that assume all the tax cuts are going away. That is not the Democratic plan nor is it President Obama’s plan.”

Plan? What plan? There is no plan. All we have is smoke and mirrors based on an old Obama campaign pledge.

Defense? Never heard of it. It’s really something what a pol can do when the McCain Campaign isn’t managing how they respond. If only every republican was willing to fight back on their own terms.

Read the whole post it is devastating as is the challenge at the end:

PolitiFact doesn’t dispute the $3.8 trillion estimate of the cost of repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It admits that “Palin’s estimate of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is within a reasonable range, if you’re talking about all taxpayers.” And yet somehow it continues to argue that I’m wrong, based on a proposal it admits doesn’t exist which in turn is based on a phantom campaign pledge which Democrats have already broken anyway. I call that a “Pants on Fire” statement.

To prevent PolitiFact from making similar mistakes in future, it would be helpful if the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership finally mustered the courage to table their plans to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Mr. President, publish your proposals, and we’ll duke it out. You can argue in favor of a multi-trillion dollar tax hike in an age of economic uncertainty and mass unemployment, and we’ll argue for fiscal sanity combined with serious spending cuts. I for one look forward to such a debate.

If sure the White House is dying to have that debate, I know congress wants that debate so badly that democrats are rethinking taxes.

How many Republicans do you know if the same spot would have played “Duck and Cover”? Now if the Poli”fact” (and yes after this I put the “fact” in quotes) is reported so must her response, and if it is NOT then the question becomes: Why?

What would we do without her?

Jay Nordlinger’s new column starts with this phrase:

I know that “Journolist” has been mightily picked over — and picked on …

Ah Jay it all depends on the audiance. If you get your information from the main stream media, the mainstream TV networks and cable networks (excluding Fox) not only has Journolist not been “picked over” it has barely been touched.

Ironically Nordlinger touches on that very thing with his first remark:

Bob Novak used to say, ‘That’s the line” — he said it with dismissive contempt. Someone else, usually on the left, would make some excuse or give some talking point, and Novak’d say, “That’s the line.” I can just hear him.

And reminds us of a line that we heard often during the election:

Some people thought that the Left would calm down, with the election of Barack Obama as president. They are now in charge. It should be okay to fight, or at least appreciate, the War on Terror (as we used to call it). (Obama and his people prefer “overseas contingency operations.”) But the Left seems as hepped up as ever.

Why? Not because they were against George Bush, (they were) but because they were and always have been (as Glenn Reynolds has always said) on the other side.

And make sure you look at all the Instapundit links there. The left may want to forget them but I sure not going to.

I really like Morning Joe, I like Joe, I like Mika, I like Barnicle. They drive me nuts a lot because I DO like them. If I didn’t I wouldn’t care. (its the same way with Andrew Sullivan, he was one of the first blogs I ever read and when he went over the hill it hurt because I remember how great he used to be)

Today on Twitter he is doing a pubic service in a series of tweets explaining the political stunt used by Democrats who rather have a political point than help for 9/11 responders.

His tweets in sequence:

first

For those who don’t understand King/Weiner debate, here are the facts….

second

JoeNBC

1. You need 218 votes to pass a bill under regular order in the House of Representatives.

third

JoeNBC

2. Pelosi had over 250 votes to pass the 9/11 bill to help NY firefighters and cops.

fourth

JoeNBC

3. Pelosi and Democrats chose to bring up the bill in a way that would require a 2/3rds vote, effectively killing the bill.

fifth

JoeNBC

4. This procedure is called a “suspension” vote and is for non-controversial measures like naming post offices.

sixth

JoeNBC

5. Pelosi could have ruled Republican amendments out of order and still taken the majority-wins vote.

seventh

JoeNBC

I know many rabid ideologues don’t let facts get in the way, but House leaders chose to kill a 9/11 relief bill they could have passed.

Some might think this is unnecessary, but you should never assume that just because you know something other people do as well. People have to be constantly reminded by nature.

More please.