Thursday, October 23, 2008

Don't miss these: 10/23/08 — Surprise! day

A surprisingly interesting list of links today.

Check back, it will be updated through the day...if anything good pops up later!
  • Surprise! Surprise! McCain received twice the negative MSM coverage that Obama received. (The only genuinely surprising development to me is that we still have drive-bys here who feign blinking-eyed astonishment at our recognition of media bias. In other news, water is still wet.)
  • McCain says he feels that he has "a righteous wind at his back." The MSM is all over him, demanding to know what he means by that, whether he's saying God is a Republican, whether he's saying that God hates Democrats, whether he's saying that his opponent is evil. Now he has to play defense, as the MSM hounds him at every appearance, and his numbers plummet.
  • Surprise! McCain didn't say that at all. But Obama did. And the media isn't saying "Boo." Surprise! (If that changes, I'll be surprised — and I'll do an update. Important Safety Tip: Do not hold your breath.)
  • Surprise again! France would much rather Obama be president. The author analyzes the numbers, and concludes that Americans should think deeply about the fact that people who hate America, and want us to have a weak leader, prefer Obama.
  • Surprising news from California: strong majorities favor significant restrictions on abortion. That's right — California.
  • Without saying it in so many words, Victor Davis Hanson shows that a vote for Obama is, in many ways, a vote for an enigma. Though I think that is too kind. We know enough about Obama to know he's the wrong man for that office. Obama deliberately hides, misrepresents, and obfuscates his past. His judgment is bankrupt, his word means nothing, his experience is unimpressive, his accomplishments are nil, and his known positions are far, far out of the mainstream and/or morally bankrupt. And that incomplete list of reasons is being charitable. If God judges us with an Obama presidency, there's a great surprise coming for many.
  • Nightmare, or dream? It certainly would be a pleasant surprise.
  • I've long argued that it is a slander on women to suggest (as many do) that their greatest ardent love in live is the right to butcher their babies. Sadly, however, in some cases, this is apparently the case. Oh, the writer tries to make other arguments; but since they're all transparently bogus, this is apparently where her heart beats. But she thinks she's a "centrist." Surprise.
  • Daniel Henninger offers some observations on hatin' Palin. To me, the unhappy surprise has been the aping of liberal invective I've gotten in email and seen elsewhere... from Christians.
  • The MSM won't fairly cover Joe Biden's should-be-game-changing admissions about his dangerously inept #1. Surprise!
  • Governor Palin observes to a CNN interviewer that the media should press Biden on this, and that if she's said anything similar, she'd have been "clobbered." The surprise? Her interviewer admits she's right.
UPDATES:
  • Flashback: check this by Charles Krauthammer. If you're honest, I think you'll be forced to grant the truth of it. Then check the date. Surprise! Nothing has changed. (H-t my dear wife.)
  • Surprise! ABC News makes another contribution to Operation Inevitability.
  • Let me ask you a question — and I'll be less subtle than I was earlier. Suppose that Sarah Palin or John McCain had said, "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Democrat. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." (They didn't say that; but Obama did.) And then suppose a man had robbed a woman, and then become furious at seeing an Obama sticker on her car, had brutalized her viciously as a result, and then had carved a "J" or an "S" in their face? Do you think the MSM would make a connection? Do you think they'd wring their hands about how the McCain campaign had whipped their crowds into a furor? Do you think they'd moan and wail about divisiveness, charged language, negative ads, and the like. NOTE: I said "would," not "should." Well, look at this sad event, and let's watch and see if the MSM lays anything at the feet of the Obama campaign. Here's my prediction: they will not — but they'll find some McCain supporter who does, they will report on that, and they'll work hard to make that person look ridiculous and overwrought. I'm on-record; now see if I'm right. If I'm wrong on this one... I'll be surprised. (More HERE.)

44 comments:

donsands said...

"His judgment is bankrupt, his word means nothing, his experience is unimpressive, his accomplishments are nil, and his known positions are far, far out of the mainstream and/or morally bankrupt."

But the man has charisma, and Oprah likes him.

Sarah Palin is a class act. That CNN reporter tried to manipulate her as well, and read from "The National Review" that Sarah was stupid. Man, did that get me going. The media is bold-faced dishonest and it's no big deal.
This election would make me go insane, if I was already crazy.

Thanks for all the good posts.

DJP said...

I think that, win or lose, just about the only person coming out of this campaign smelling like a whole backyard full of roses is Governor Palin.

chrish said...

Two things: 1) You spelled "surprisingly" incorrectly in your title;
2) I really DO enjoy the posts, and do not just come here to nitpick spelling. Please keep on posting these tidbits, because if you think the MSM in the USA is biased left, you ain't seen nothing till you've been to Canada.

DJP said...

1. It isn't the title. But thanks, I'll correct it.

2. When I point out misspellings for other bloggers (as I often do), I email them. But you do as you wish, I do want to correct them.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Do you have any links to the media saying McCain made the comment about a righteous wind? I haven't been able to find anything so far.

DJP said...

Glad to see you again. Read the whole post, please, Lieutenant.

Becky, a slave of Christ said...

My husband, the nontechnogeek is a closet blogger. This means: sometimes I read posts to him and he responds. Today he was questioning the nature and source of that wind; though he does agree it is coming from behind.

Lieutenant Pratt said...

I did read it all and the articles you posted. Are you trying to be funny? I was a way yesterday at conference on national security so I thought I missed something.

DJP said...

So... you read it. Then you read that I said McCain never said it, so McCain never got jumped by the MSM; but Obama did say it, and the MSM gives him a pass?

But you're still asking me for links to McCain saying what I said he never said?

Mesa Mike said...

Dan,

1) you might just have to spell it out for the good lieutenant. [edit - I see you already did that]

2) A brilliant argument from one of the seminar commenters on the Henninger article:
"Mr. Henninger, This article is not worth the paper it is written on."
OK, I'm voting for Obama now.

3) McCain gets twice the negative coverage that Obama gets from the MSM? Where's the surprise? Oh, wait. Don't spell it out.

4) So, France supports Obama. Big Deal. Here's something "surprising": Al-Qaeda supports McCain!

5) Your last point about CNN interviewer admitting Palin is right actually is a surprise.

6) Happy Halloween.

Nathan said...

Lt. Pratt:

Dan's first paragraph on the righteous wind outlines how he believes the MSM would have responded if McCain had said he had a righteous wind at his back. Then Dan links to an article on how Obama did say it, but the media doesn't care. His point is that he believes the mainstream media outlets ignore comments by Obama for which they'd crucify McCain.

(FYI, I didn't pick up on the satire right away either. I spent a couple moments vainly looking for reports of McCain and his righteous wind.)

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

DJP,

I, for one, am really glad for all your posts on the overlapping intersection between our life in Christ and our involvement in the socio-cultural-political public square.

You overwhelmingly demonstrate that one can indeed proclaim and preach the Gospel WHILE simultaneously showing the fruits of regeneration by laboring for God's justice in a fallen world as His Salt and Light.

P.S. This is my counterpoint to a fellow brother in Christ whom I esteem greatly (as do you): Phil Johnson.

Rachael Starke said...

Becky,

Ha! My husband (alright I admit it, and me) had the exact. same. reaction. If he wasn't so busy at the moment I'd hit him up to find some of Martin Luther's most hilarious and edifying comments in that regard. Maybe later today - no doubt such references will be helpful waaay beyond today.

gods.geek said...

There is a name for that "righteous wind" that obama is feeling at his back . . . .

DJP said...

All right, all right, all right, enough about the wind.

How about the pass that MSM gives The One?

If it's not enough to imagine McCain saying it — imagine is Palin had said it!

One Salient Oversight said...

Surprise again! France would much rather Obama be president. The author analyzes the numbers, and concludes that Americans should think deeply about the fact that people who hate America, and want us to have a weak leader, prefer Obama.

You're flipping out. I'm losing respect for you every day.

DJP said...

I take it that you read the linked article as thoughtfully as you characteristically read all the posts on which you snipe, and the mission statement of the blog?

I'm shattered. Shattered!

Andrew said...

DJP,

Can you offer a Christian perspective on voting for third party candidates with no chance of winning? That is - voting on principle rather than pragmatism?

Have you considered voting for Bob Barr rather than McCain? I would think you would agree that Barr would be a better president, no?

If you're not familiar with him see http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

Any reason NOT to vote for Barr, related to Biblical principles?

I look forward to the "Don't miss these" postings. They are enjoyable and informative. I never miss them!

Andrew said...

Better yet, what about Chuck Baldwin?!
http://baldwin08.com/

DJP said...

Yeah, Andrew; it's a good question, and a fair question, and I have been thinking about writing about it.

The brief answer is that yes, I did think of it - when I was in my 20s or 30s. My last throwaway vote was when the arrogant, contemptuous Pete Wilson ran for governor here.

I'll start working on something for it. Just for you! (Who said I don't take special requests?)

CR said...

This election is too important not work on something like that Dan, even though you have discussed it before in posts with individuals.

In other news, some lady gets robbed at an ATM and goes ballistic when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car and so he carves a "B" on her face.

Another reason why I won't put a Palin bumper sticker on my car. My car is paid off and I don't want it to get vandalized.

DJP said...

Tag.

Check under Updates.

Mesa Mike said...

My wife just wrote a letter to the editor, and it was just published. I am now preparing to be ostracized by half the people in this town. I might as well put a Palin sticker on my forehead. :-)

Lieutenant Pratt said...

Nathan- thanks for helping me understand. I'm still slow at this internet stuff.

My wife and I just returned from a McCain rally in Ormond Beach. It was worth the 90 minute drive north. The speech was good but mostly repeated a lot of the false stuff I seen on the tv. I was hoping McCain would convince me to vote for him today. I hope Sarah Palin will speak here next week. I'd like to see her and Obama before I decide.

donsands said...

"..mostly repeated a lot of the false stuff.."

What false stuff? If you don't mind me asking.

Fred Butler said...

Just for the record. That smear by OSO against your character I take as a good thing. I would worry if folks who believe like him thought you were the greatest thing since slice bread.

~Mark said...

I have my doubts about the ATM "attack". Something about it just don't smell right.

Brian said...

Is Facebook part of the MSM? They won't even let me send a link to your blog via Facebook chat!

They give me this message:
"Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users."

I guess you got someone riled up.

Rachael Starke said...

~mark:
What part of this doesn't look right to you?

And before you question the Fox News angle, I checked CNN, MSNObama, the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle to see if anyone else has reported it. And, in the process, reminded myself why the only news paper I even read, let alone subscribe to, is the Wall Street Journal.

Dan, re: the alternate voting strategies - I actually grew up in Australia, where they have what's called a preferential voting system. Instead of choosing one candidate, you place a #1 next to the candidate of your first choice, a #2 next to the candidate of your second choice, etc. all the way down the (often) long list. Many candidates create preference guides, which offer suggestions about where they would like your #2 vote to go, but you're not obligated.

If no candidate earns at least 50% of the vote (hmmm, when has that ever happened in an American election in the last, ohhh, hundred years???), the candidate with the fewest votes has their second preferences distributed. IOW, all their #2 choices become #1 votes. This frees people to choose who they want, instead of who they think might win. So, for example, I could vote for Mike Huckabee or Tom McClintock, knowing that even if they don't achieve a clear majority, I could specify that my second choice could have their vote, and my last choice, say, oh, I don't know, Ms. Pelosi, would never, ever cut it. What you end up with, is a candidate that has a group of true believers, a far larger group of semi-believers, and a smaller group of "Oh, you have got to be kidding me" folks.

As opposed to this country, the country of my birth, that is poised to choose a candidate with approximately 20% true believers and 80% uncaring to "NOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

FWIW, I do sympathize with the many people who are reluctant to hold their nose and vote McPalin. But as you wrote so well yesterday, the terrifying implications of Obama's commitment to abortion alone make this a whole different ballgame. IMHO.

Becky, a slave of Christ said...

Sigh...I thought about commenting on this earlier, but wanted to wait for something more concrete. Michelle Malkin has had doubts about the veracity of what happened to this girl like Mark. She posted about it earlier and when I went there just now, sure enough there was more.

CR said...

Brian,

Justin Taylor's blog if memory serves me correct also got tagged as abusive by Facebook.

It's probably people really mad about the pro-life articles that are being done. If anyone is disgruntled, they probably report.

You know, I tried saying something earlier in the year about my discomfort about Facebook (you couldn't pay me to go on it). Something just seems really weird about posting your life on the Internet even though you can restrict who you want to look.

Now, Facebook it seems is really turning out to be the doofus organization that it really is. I know the 1st amendment is about government not restricting free speech, not private organizations. But I wonder if Facebook restricts access to Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Maybe some of you guys that got duped into Facebook can find out. :=) I'd be dying to know if it tages those websites as abusive?

CR said...

Hmmm, we'll see, Becky. But, Dan's point still stands on this. I believe his point was, if this happened to an Obama volunteer, they would be foaming from the mouth mad, there would CNN and DNCTV breaking news alerts. This volunteer would be on Larry King Alive that same day.

But, no, the story is about a McCain volunteer, so, they're like...{yawn}, let's talk about Palin's clothing.

Now, if this story, does turn to be fake, now, THEN, I'm willing to gamble the MSM WILL cover it. They'll say stuff like, people in the McCain/Palin campaign are DESPERATE! People in the McCain/Palin campaign are staging stuff, they are racists, etc. etc. etc. Either way, we'll see.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Andrew: "Can you offer a Christian perspective on voting for third party candidates with no chance of winning? That is - voting on principle rather than pragmatism?"

Consider this excerpt:

"The second fatal error conservatives can make (and I know I’m inviting the onslaught here) is to throw away your vote on a third-party candidate who cannot win, on the assumption that a couple of years with a super-liberal government will turn people’s heads around.

I am just as disgusted with the spend-happy Republicrats in power as the next person. And, as a Libertarian, I believe in third parties. But it is one thing to support a candidate with a legitimate shot at victory, and another thing to throw your vote away, essentially casting another vote for Barack Obama.

We saw the same arguments being made in 2006: “I’m voting my conscience;” “I’m voting for someone who actually espouses conservative principles;” “I’m sending Republicans a message” (my personal favorite); and “After two years of a Democrat Congress/President, the public will be so fed up that we’ll get real conservatives elected in the next election.”

I get it. But I’m sorry, those rules don’t work, for what should be obvious reasons.

Those of you who “sent Republicans a message” by staying home or voting for third party candidates in 2006 helped create a Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s been two years – see any outrage yet? Are the same Democrats who helped create the financial crisis being shown the door?

This year’s election poses the threat of a filibuster-proof Senate. If Obama wins the Presidency, you’ll have helped hand all three branches of government to the Democrats. Yes, three."

From: Don't Be a Media Dupe - Vote to WIN

CR said...

Ooooh, I'm not sure I like that Australian voting system, Rachael. Love Australia, but not that. If we had that in 2000, Gore would be President because all he needed was 500 votes to win Florida.

CR said...

Oooh, yeah, I hated that "send Republicans a message" mentality also TUAD. Here's what a democrat controlled Congress got for us 2006: an even worse approval rating and let's not forget the Senate. It virtually halted anymore confirmations of federal judges by the Bush administration. It was hard enough to do it with a Republican Congress because the democrats always filibustered. Now, it's a complete halt. There are some courts with emergencies but the democrats have halted everything in hopes of getting an Obama administration.

Rachael Starke said...

Becky - Oh good grief - you may be right. I told myself that it was obviously just a reversed image, but the policeman's explanation is a lot more plausible. Well, in that case, shame on Fox News for jumping on it. And on me, I guess, for not trusting and verifying...

Rachael Starke said...

Carlo - Now wait. Just think for a minute. What you're saying is that there would have been significantly more people whose second preference would have been the original Planet Healer?? Were things that bad even back then? (I'm trying to maintain that Palinesque joie de vivre and eternal optimism... :) )

CR said...

Becky and Rachael,

Actually, it was the local news of the Pennsylvania town that reported it. And since the MSM wouldn't touch it, Drudge picked it up and Fox News. I don't think it's really a shame on Fox News, if the story is not true. Fox News was just picking up on what their local news was reporting.

The MSM, well, they just didn't want to touch it period. But again, if the story isn't true, watch the MSM go after this like a pack of wolves and talk about the evil people working in McPalin campaign.

CR said...

Rachael: I'm trying to maintain that Palinesque joie de vivre and eternal optimism... :) )


Rachael - you should know that I don't understand a word of French, seriously, I don't! :=)

But to your point, the United States does not have a national election which I think, Australia has, right? Sort of a parlimentary system.

So, your system wouldn't reall work. I was just trying to apply to the state of Florida which Bush needed to win the election. But since the presidential election is not a national election, it is a state by state election, than the Australian method wouldn't work.

But yeah, lot of the Green Party choices would have gone to Gore giving Gore at least Florida right away.

DJP said...

Carlo's point of 10:52pm last night is exactly right, and I agree with all of it. I'm not certain, at this point, if the story's true - and that wasn't my point. Carlo got it.

Andrew said...

Truth Unites... and Divides said...
We saw the same arguments being made in 2006: “I’m voting my conscience;” “I’m voting for someone who actually espouses conservative principles;” “I’m sending Republicans a message” (my personal favorite); and “After two years of a Democrat Congress/President, the public will be so fed up that we’ll get real conservatives elected in the next election.”

That is not my assumption nor my reasoning for voting 3rd party, although I too have heard disaffected Republicans saying tthat. I agree with you that, IF we care only about prgmatism, this is a failed strategy.

I do not think McCain would be a good president. The best thing I can say about him is he won't be as bad as Obama. But is that really saying much? Whence this unbelievably low standard for winning our support?

This is an election, and readers of this blog know what that word elect means! It means to choose, or select. It does not primarily mean to choose against and reject others. It only has that meaning by secondary inference.

Well, I do not choose McCain. He is not my choice. He is not Dan's choice, Carlo's choice or your choice either. We do not believe he will be a good president. Probably few or none of you who are planning to vote McCain Nov 4th actually chose McCain in the Republican primary!

(okay so here in Virginia you don’t have to be a registered republican do vote in primaries. But you wouldn’t have chosen him among the primary candidates. My point is you actions are just your way of rejecting Obama. It seems to me that an election (by definition) is your/my opportunity to actively choose someone to be president)

So - really - why should I choose McCain?
I look at 3rd party candidates and I suppose, "Here’s someone who would be a good president. He knows that the government needs to fundamentally change direction. He gets it! And he has experience. His vision of how our government should work is wise." Eureka! He/she actually inspires me to vote for them!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...
I am just as disgusted with the spend-happy Republicrats in power as the next person. And, as a Libertarian, I believe in third parties. But it is one thing to support a candidate with a legitimate shot at victory, and another thing to throw your vote away, essentially casting another vote for Barack Obama.

Whether or not it is wise to vote third party, I reject this last remark as both false and manipulative. Especially in light of the guilt that falls upon every informed Obama voter (as Dan pointed out here) Simply because the worst possible candidate is expected to win does not make us morally obligated to choose the only person with a chance to stop him. Does it? What if McCain held to every position the same as Obama except with no association Ayers or Acorn. That would make him a hair better as a candidate. A teensy bit less wrong than The One. Do we still have to choose McCain Where do you draw the line?

American voting is not like committing one's life to Christ. So let's not construe a "you are either for Obama or against Obama" doctrine where "against Obama" is narrowly defined voting for whoever has a chance to defeat him. It seems to me that is a manipulation of the election, the spirit of which is supposed to be CHOOSING who you think would be best.

I am posing this question sincerely. So please take me seriously even if I am wrong about voting third party.

~Mark said...

Dan's absolutely right about the bias in reporting, and what's ironic is that there really has been a spate of violent actions against conservatives dating back to the Bush/Kerry run off. Theft and vandalism of property, personal threats and even physical violence are part and parcel of today's ultra liberal community.

However, since the MSM pushes that to a 9 second soundbite somewhere after "local flower show to be best ever" nobody hears much about them.

By the way, about Mr. Murtha's "racist Western Pennsylvania" remark: I live there, and he's right. There will be plenty of Whites voting for Obama, but only because of their intense hatred of George Bush, who (also ironically) isn't even in the running!

My eyes weren't opened to the depth of racism around here until I visited cities like Chicago, Philly and New York. That's not to say those cities don't harbor racism, but we ain't no sweet by and by for ethnic relations.

Becky, a slave of Christ said...

One final comment. I have been dealing with a computer issue as of first thing Friday morning, so I was unable to see followup to my Thursday evening comment and want to say that when I sited the Malkin blog, I was not negating Dan's original point. How could I possibly do so in the midst of this election? The bias is over the top. Honestly, the thoughts that came to my mind from finding out the girl lied were ridiculously conflicted, but I am just going to have to write a post about it.

DJP said...

It was a perfectly good point, and it turns out Malkin was right.