Posts Tagged ‘left’

CNN reports want to censor the blogs. We have seen this stuff for years No Sheeples Here puts it very well:

Uh, no John, we’re not a bunch of cowards. The corporate-controlled media is the coward. You didn’t see any blogs selling out our intelligence community like The Washington Post did in its three-part story Top Secret America.

Bloggers do the work that journalists used to do. Oh, and the pariah of the dead tree media—The National Enquirer—has scooped the lamestream media so many times we’ve lost count.

When you visit a blog you know exactly what you’re getting. Unlike so-called journalists who “claim” not to be biased, bloggers are up front about their biases. Bloggers on the right, for the most part, are rarely paid. I know this blogger isn’t. I don’t advertise here. The one advertisement you see at the top of the sidebar is placed there gratis because I love everything Old Glory stands for.

I don’t get paid here either (except per hit on my examiner work) but feel free to kick into DaTipJar if you think that needs to change.

On and if you want to see an example of the media’s self censorship of stories they don’t want reported, consider this from Moe Lane (all emphasis mine):

The mayor being Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan, of course. If you read the story, it has been conceded by all parties that drinking was involved; but apparently only a on-the-spot field breathalyzer test was deemed necessary to clear the driver, who, again, is the brother-in-law of the mayor of Bethlehem, who is now running for Congress. Any particular reason why the city never followed up on a possibly-booze related accident that injured one of its police officers, and is apparently now stonewalling reporters on it?

What? This is a local matter, and thus no big deal? Yeah, well, that’s what they said about Bill Delahunt and the Amy Bishop cover up.

“Who?” Precisely.

The left’s greatest strength is as a gatekeeper keeping stories from going beyond a short blub in a local paper on at the AP. Let’s add one more example from a while back

The silencing of Summers was easy to miss. The Washington Post did not report it. The New York Times gave it three sentences. The Los Angeles Times ignored it, except for one nonstaff op-ed.

By contrast, the briefly martyred Chemerinsky — who was hired, fired (based on conservative complaints about his political views), and rehired (thanks in part to free-speech conservative support) as founding dean of a new law school at UC Irvine — inspired 17 articles and editorials in the Los Angeles Times, two articles and an outraged editorial in The New York Times, and one article in The Washington Post.

Quick question. How many stories has CNN done on Journolist, lets to go the CNN site and do a search. Here is the one result in its entirety:

Be in the know: Today’s political bullet points
Posted: 05:09 PM ET

Editor’s note: Occasionally we will ask influential politicos to send us their top three bullet points that are driving the day’s conversation in and outside Washington.

Firedoglake.com Blogger/Founder Jane Hamsher:

– Democrats decide to fund war but not teachers.

– John McCain votes against border security.

– Dan Choi Calls the Closet a Poison, a Deadly Toxic Disease.

RedState.Com Editor Erick-Woods Erickson:

– In pushing back against Andrew Breitbart, Democrats and Shirley Sherrod have overplayed their hand and wiped out pretty much any sympathy for Ms. Sherrod on the right.

– Democrat panic is setting in at the state level as they realize control of legislatures might be slipping away from them, hurting Democrat redistricting efforts.

– The ongoing leaks of the left-wing Journolist is continuing to solidify opinion on the right that the media really is on the left and the left really projects their own issues of violence onto the right.

Filed under: Bullet Points

That’s it? The daily caller has been revealing tidbits for days and the only mention is from a bullet point submitted by a conservative blogger? What is this, the Washington Post?

That’s why they hate the blogs and Fox, the monopoly is broken.

Memeorandum thread here.

…one about the past and one about the present.

Nasty Thought #1: All this draft nonsense:

Do you get the feeling that MSNBC and the left are pushing and talking draft right now because they are afraid of Gen Petraeus? Not afraid of him politically but afraid of him as a general. I have the horrible and uncharitable feeling that they are afraid he will actually win this war.

Success in the war would mean a more powerful US. One more likely to act rather than talk. The concept of the US military as a force never to be used is even more sacred to the left than the first black president. They aren’t in a position to attack Petraeus so the only way to counter him is to get the country talking draft. With a high unemployment rate and college so expensive it is a tempting solution to several social/economic problems but it would scare the britches off of many in the ME generation.

The left has never lost their love of 60’s radicalism, it was their greatest moment, it is their dream to bring it back in living color.

Such an appraisal is not very fair to most of the left and is as I said a nasty thought, but right now it is stuck in my head and won’t come out.

Nasty Thought #2 Al Gore

For years I’ve wondered why Al Gore didn’t assert himself during the Clinton Impeachment stuff. It would have been up to Gore to talk to the president and say it was time for him to go. If he had conventional wisdom says he would have easily won election in 2000 and maybe even in 2004. Not only did he not assert himself but he after the impeachment vote made that ludicrous speech calling Mr. Bill “One of our greatest presidents” (talk about grading on a curve)! In my mind the question has always been: Why did he play along?

I have the nasty feeling that question has now been answered. Does anyone believe for one moment that if the Clintons knew Gore had some ahem “interesting diversions” they wouldn’t have held that over him? Al understood that people judge a Rogue differently than a “strait arrow”. It’s the expectations game. People were not surprised that Clinton was messing around and judged him accordingly, but Gore? He would be judged by his strait arrow image.

Again this is a nasty thought and assumes Gore’s guilt but I can’t get it out of my head.

Are these thoughts a sign I am becoming paranoid or am I just becoming more street savvy? What do you think?

…covering this politico story and discovers they are likely not quite on-board with the whole victory thing:

You can read the rest of that, but it’s a pretty simple story: All those Democrats who spent six years complaining that the Iraq war was a mistake because it distracted from fighting the real enemy in Afghanistan were . . . eh, lying.

Anti-war Democrats aren’t just against bad wars and, in truth, they’re not actually anti-war. They’re just anti-America.

This is not exactly news as I wrote before:

the concept that the replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus brought one line of argument, basically that it shouldn’t be used to try to win

Here is the big conundrum: Smart Pols understand that it is not a political winner to be identified with losing a war or being responsible for losing a war. Not for the president, not for themselves and if there is anything more sacred than the humbling of America to the left, it is retaining power.

The question becomes: What is more important to the left; retaining power they crave or losing the war and humbling the west? We will find out in 2 1/2 years.

from their site. Down the memory hole it goes, via Weasel Zippers. Stacy puts it best:

The American Left: Shamelessly Following Orders Ever Since Stalin Told Us to Endorse Hitler’s Invasion of Poland.

Well not everyone. AMERICAblog expresses surprise:

You’ll remember Petraeus as one of the Iraq war’s biggest defenders. Which is interesting, since the Senate Democrats just a few years ago produced a lengthy analysis of how flawed Petraeus’ Iraq testimony really was.

They get full marks for consistency, but it’s funny I’m sure the first thing on everybody’s mind was his testimony. It prompted the following comment from me:

Perhaps our democratic friends have discovered that “flawed congressional testimony” doesn’t trump actual success in winning a war.

I’ve already said I don’t care who commands as long as we win (and don’t have to do without Lara Logan). Little Miss Attila is still worried:

I actually think it was a clever move, though I wonder whether it’s possible to salvage the situation at this point.

And I offer her these words of encouragement:

Have faith Joy, after all that’s what the World Cup announcers were saying at the 90th minute of today’s match.

However Michal Yon in an e-mail to Glenn is more bullish:

I was there through the entire surge, and more, and saw the remarkable transformation under command of General Petraeus and due to the incredible efforts of our armed forces and civilian counterparts. No book that I have read, including the one that I wrote, has fully conveyed the magnitude of those days. You simply had to be there.

Here we are again. This time on the cusp of losing the war in Afghanistan. The situation is worse than ever before. Again, the United States has asked General David Petraeus to step into a situation that seems hopeless to many people. It is not hopeless, just extremely bad.

We have not yet begun to fight.

Update: Now a Memeorandum thread coming to a computer near you.