Posts Tagged ‘reality’

Andrew Breitbart said this on Big Government:

Everything you needed to know about the unorthodox roll out of the now-notorious ACORN sting videos was hidden in plain sight in my Sept. 7 column, “Katie Couric, Look in the Mirror.” ACORN was not the only target of those videos; so were Katie, Brian, Charlie and every other mainstream media pooh-bah.

When you read the whole thing you realize how successful this has been. Acorns defenders in the print media are now forced to make their defense to a public that has seen the videos and Jay Leno and John Stewart mockery of Acorn has left guys like Errol Lewis in effect asking readers: “Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?”

The media is now on the spot and choices had to be made. The Washington post chose to go after the filmmakers as it was very hard to go after the film.

Michael Barone commented:

The Post, like almost all of “mainstream media,” waddled in late on this story. I remember one time in the 1980s when the Wall Street Journal beat the Post was beaten on a story based on public information in Montgomery County, Maryland, court files. Ben Bradlee, the executive editor of the Post at the time, did not whine as New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson did on the ACORN story about how the bureau was short-staffed and, gee, it’s hard to stay on top of every story. Bradlee was furious—scooped in our own backyard!—and as I recall heads fell. But that was then and this is now. “Mainstream media” is complacent about suppressing a story that is embarrassing to the Obama administration and the Democratic party, and its response after getting scooped is to waddle in with attempts to discredit it. Pathetic.

The AP wasn’t far behind playing defense as they attempt to make excuses for Acorn:

ACORN has portrayed its problems as the unfortunate work of a few employees. In the best case, that suggests it made bad hires and gave them poor training and supervision. But when the founder of a national organization admits attempting to keep quiet his brother’s theft of more than $900,000, it’s a sign that ACORN’s problems may rise high and run deep.

How did ACORN wind up in this mess? Did it simply grow too big for its own good?

Oh I see poor Acorn betrayed by their own success. Peg’s (proudly banned from lgf yesterday) personal friends at Powerline (proudly banned from little green footballs last week) had this to say:

The AP takes the cue and puts the words in O’Keefe’s mouth. It’s quite a racket they’ve got going here, and someone really should call them on it.

They actually contacted the Washington post before putting up their entry and are still waiting a response.

Between this and the Van Jones issue the media is now faced with a choice: Unwavering defense of the administration or to act like, you know reporters.

This week George Stephanopolis made that choice and caught the president totally by surprise:

Save money on your state-mandated auto insurance with GEICO? Pass your signature legislation while holding the White House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 70+ seat majority in the House? Obtusely obfuscate the lawyerly difference between a dollar seized by the government through fine and a dollar appropriated by the government by tax? Confuse the practical utility of automobile liability insurance and health insurance?

Now, technically Obama is right in the Stephanopolis interview. A fine is not a tax. The net effect is the same but he’s the kind of technically right you might expect a Constitutional lawyer to be on this issue. He’s stuck on the hot seat, though, because he’d look like a dick nattering about what kind revenue generating bill originates in which house of Congress. So deny it, impugn Merriam Webster (a fine, upstanding woman I’m told), and misdirect with a fallacious comparison to state-mandated auto liability insurance.

Who’s the genius that cooked up that line of reasoning? It’s a flawed argument for a couple of obvious reasons.

This wasn’t a confrontational interview but that was an actual challenging question, the type that I used to hear reporters ask decades ago, and this president couldn’t handle it. I thought the guy was supposed to be the Liberal Ronald Reagan?

Morning Joe is all over the Steph clip today, it’s news but the real news is that he followed up. I submit that he would not be doing that if it wasn’t for the Acorn Tapes, Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles. That is the real news. The combination of Van Jones and Acorn are going to force the media to be either advocates or reporters and in at least some cases they are choosing to be reporters.

Related: This howler from Newsbusters:

But check out Tom Rosenstiel (formerly of Newsweek and the L.A. Times) gritting his rhetorical teeth at Alexander’s point even as he calls the liberal media “non-ideological”:

It “can’t be discounted,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. “Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up by non-ideological media because there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms.”

“They just don’t see the resonance of these issues. They don’t hear about them as fast [and] they’re not naturally watching as much,” he added.

The “non-ideological media” have “too many liberals in most newsrooms”?

Expect a lot more of this. The worm has turned.

Well today Charles posted a link from media matters hitting Rush:

I left the following comment:

Ah George Soros’ Media matters, I never thought I’d see the day when it would be quoted with approval here.

I listed to the show that day. Rush was purposely being sarcastic as he regularly does, pointing out absurdity by being absurd.

But hey if you want to take Soros’ line on it, that’s your call, your blog, your nickel.

A fellow named Dark Falcon left this comment:

re: #908 pingemi

I already responded to that argument:

re: #91 Dark_Falcon

Charles didn’t quote any commentary from MM. All he did was post a clip they made available from Limbaugh’s show. I despise David Brock, but in this case Brock was not wrong in posting the vid. That said, I would trust Brock’s opinions on the matter any further than I could throw an T-90.

In case you haven’t read any of my amazon reviews PIngemi is me.

I started to work on a long reply. I search the LGF archives and noted the dates and made a long post with many links, all of them from LGF, but when I hit “post comment” suddenly I found myself logged out and my comments deleted, and my account blocked.

As I said in the other comment, it’s Charles blog and he can keep or lose who he wants, but I’m going to make my answer here with the comment I was going to leave.

re: #912 BigPapa

To illustrate other absurdity, for example he has talked about graduation ceremonies where multiculturalists have said it is proper to have a Black graduation and a “Hispanic” graduation.

It also illustrated the absurdity of some who thought the election of the president was going to take race out of other equations.

And this blog has amply chronicled Media Matters has such a history of doing it’s best to represent the right accurately.

Look at the dates on that link. It’s very interesting but it would appear that from the time that Media matters backed Charles in his dispute with Beck Charles hasn’t had a tagged post going after media matters for anything. Nor the Daily Kos for that matter, and only one tagged moonbats. (it was a good one)

And no tagged post hitting Media Matters Godfather George Soros for over a year.

He once talked about the six degrees of George Soros, and now it’s only one.

It’s rather amazing that for all that time these guys haven’t don’t anything weird enough for Charles to post and illustrate, and even the one moonbat post concerns stuff done in years past.

Have they suddenly become all sane? Have they all suddenly decided to support the troops? Have they all suddenly decided to support Israel? And wasn’t it just under a year ago that this blog highlighted Rush turning an insult into 2 million dollars for the Children of fallen soldiers?

C’mon guys we know Rush and media matters, history didn’t begin in April of this year.

Again it’s Charles Blog, I’t not for me to tell him what to post but nobody’s going to tell me Honorary Lizzardoid Rush has suddenly become Richard Russell.

One point of clarification in the above post “this blog” refers to lgf.

And my apologies to Big Papa as I wasn’t able to properly respond to him.

I did not request for my account to be blocked nor my comments deleted. I did not flounce. I don’t know if Charles noted that I was searching his tags for the above items or if he just didn’t like the first comment, but common courtesy would demand that one is informed before being banned by at least an e-mail. This is one of the advantages to actually having a life being banned by LGF will not lose me any sleep.

As the Cid said to Prince Alphonso:

Sire you risk having no Spain at all

I will have a full parody translation up before the end of the week.

I’m still going to put up that common principles post, and still ask Charles via e-mail if he wants to sign it when I do.

I’ll pray for him you should too.

Update: But as Robert Stacy mentioned last week I have a sick sense of humor and I intend to have a lot of fun with this before I get bored with it.

Update 2:
I see that the green room has an official LGF thread as a place to do our Charles Venting, It woudn’t do to for us to catch Sullivan’s syndrome over all this. After all every moment not on LGF is a moment that can be spent reading 30 year vet David Carden’s new book The Army Insider.

In comments Robert Stacy McCain pointed me to this post concerning liberals that includes this paragraph:

It is one thing to assume (at least, for the sake of argument) that a liberal like Obama desires what is good for America. It is another thing to assume that a liberal actually knows what is good for America, or that, knowing what is good, he will actually pursue the good competently and persistently. The history of liberalism disproves any such assumption.

We may give liberals credit for their good intentions – how else shall they pave the road to hell? — but we can never credit liberals with good sense.

If they had any sense, they wouldn’t be liberals, would they?

Not bad, nothing there I don’t agree with. Before that he says this:

No, DTG, what we need are ex-liberals like Ronald Reagan, who was a bleeding heart until he recognized that liberalism amounted to a formula for paralysis, failure and decline, as it still does.

Like Ronald Reagan, I am an ex-Democrat. You don’t recruit liberals, you either defeat liberals or you convert liberals.

That’s pretty good, I’m an ex-democrat myself, mainly because the party changed to the point where being a Roman Catholic who ya know actually believes means you are a racist/sexist/bigiot/homophobe to them. But there are also times like now when liberals are in power, either by the the hubris and excesses of conservatives (or faux conservatives) or the American people exercising their inalienable right to be wrong.

If such a time is a time of war like now the consequences of defeat don’t change. It is necessary to fund, recruit and prosecute said war. The consequences of said defeat are going to be the same for everyone (actually it will be worse for liberals as an we might not allow Andrew Sullivan to marry but an Islamic state will not allow him to live.) if we make them understand this simple fact we can be assured of the first necessary thing. Survival.

This also has important side effects:

First: It makes it easier to convince or convert a liberal to our way of thinking. To get people to our way of thinking you need to start somewhere. That is the single easiest part of conservatism to understand. Conservatism 101. You want to get the basic course out of the way before you go to more advanced stuff. Ya gotta walk before you run.

Second: It exposes liberals to the strength of conservative values; best represented by the American soldier. I’ve found that people who actually know troops in person have a much firmer grasp of reality. The best example is a young man I’ve known for most of his life, he served at Gitmo and in Iraq and teaches locally. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states but his kids practically worship him. Good luck with liberal indoctrination with the bunch that has been in his history class.

Third: Most importantly every bit of political capital that we don’t have to spend on the war is political capital we can spend on other things. Funding and winning the war is the Sine non quan for the country. If it came down to twisting arms would you want to have to make a choice between that and say Obamacare? Would you want to have to divert resources?

Don’t get me wrong, Conservatives need to fight just like our troops do.

What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.

What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.

Conservatives need to make sure we are more Conan than Captain America but the as in Iraq the sword wasn’t the only weapon our guys use to win.

I’ve got teenage sons, you have six kids. Their future depends on us winning. If I can get an allies on the war on terror that’s going to help them grow old and gray I’m damn well not going to worry if they have don’t have a conservative decoder ring.

Speaking more of the Missile stuff it also a question of the deterrent value I have another question. What is the actual goal? If the goal is deterrence that you might not get what you are paying for. Consider the following:

Situation A: There are missiles deployed in and controlled by Poland and a threat (any threat) comes up. It is a question of Poland defending itself. It can employ it’s defense on their own terms. It doesn’t have to involve the US at all in terms of blood and treasure once they are deployed.

Situation B: The missiles are on a US ship and a threat comes up. It then becomes a question of the United States opening fire on another nation and all the political and geopolitical ramifications involved therein.

Not only are the costs greater for us, but if we decide that for whatever reason we don’t want to pay them, Poland is screwed.

If the goal is actual deterrence then situation A is better than situation B no matter what the technology is.

However if the goal is to appease Russia and Putin then it’s a great plan, but hey not to worry they said it’s ok and it’s not like the Pols think we are selling them out or something. Oh wait:

Strategic ally? Mainstay of our security? End of illusions. United States of America, for which we have for each call, turned his back to us. U.S. President lightly tossed into the trash heap construction of the Poland and the Czech anti-missile shield. The massive military installation was to give special meaning to us in NATO and to strengthen our position towards Russia. But America, instead of Warsaw, he prefers dialogue with Moscow. Yesterday the whole world went round decision Barack Obama Kremlin triumphs, and the Poles have been exposed to the wind.

Hey maybe it’s the Buchanan “Don’t defend Poland and WWII is a fight between Hitler and Russia” plan all over again! Change we can believe in!

Well I’m sure we can straighten it out with the Polish Prime minister, if we was willing to take our calls that is.