I think that this is a much more justifiable term than “Islamaphobia” or “homophobia.”
But then, maybe it is just bigotry.
[Saturday update]
They’re not theophobes. They’re just theophobic about conservatives. So, that’s all right then.
Category Archives: Media Criticism
Bombing John McCain
…with Google:
Bowers chose the news articles by matching the topics to existing polling data that shows what issues likely will turn voters off to McCain. He also makes sure that the articles come from news organizations like CNN.com, which already are highly ranked in Google search results, he added.
“We’re just using McCain’s own words — everything we are targeting are things McCain has done or said himself. There’s no bias at all. There are no opinion pieces. They are all news pieces that quote McCain himself. Obviously it is manipulating, but search engines are not public forums and unless you act to use them for your own benefit your opponent’s information is going to get out there. This is the sort of ‘Do It Yourself’ activism that is very much in line with the tone of this campaign,” Bowers said.
Somehow, based on some of Google’s actions in the past, I suspect they don’t mind.
He’s No Jimmy Carter
Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama apparently will lie to us.
Of course, I’m not aware that Obama has ever made a Carter-like pledge.
By the way, I don’t mean to imply that Carter doesn’t speak falsehoods. I just think that he’s delusional enough to believe them.
[Update in the early afternoon]
Here’s more on Obama’s campaign-finance hypocrisy.
…public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue — Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?
That was a rhetorical question, right?
[Update a few minutes later]
Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Obama for declining public financing per se. I think that public financing is an ugly chancre on the body politic, and I cheer when it’s foregone. I wish that McCain would do the same thing. Unfortunately, he’d look even more hypocritical if he did so, due to his having become the point man for all of these idiotic and unconstitutional campaign finance laws. He could use this as an excuse to follow suit, saying that he had no choice, given Obama’s going back on his word, but we all know that if he did, the howls from the media would be deafening.
Well, according to the BBC, he didn’t lie. He just “reversed his promise.”
Well, that’s all right then.
It’s only fair to note that technically, they’re correct. If Obama said it while having no intention of doing it at the time, it would be a lie, but we can’t get into his mind. Sometimes promises aren’t kept, but that doesn’t mean that they were a lie at the time they were made. I was always annoyed when people told me that George H. W. Bush lied when he said “read my lips, no new taxes.” A broken promise is, in fact, not the same as a lie. But it’s a reason to not consider voting for someone.
He’s No Jimmy Carter
Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama apparently will lie to us.
Of course, I’m not aware that Obama has ever made a Carter-like pledge.
By the way, I don’t mean to imply that Carter doesn’t speak falsehoods. I just think that he’s delusional enough to believe them.
[Update in the early afternoon]
Here’s more on Obama’s campaign-finance hypocrisy.
…public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue — Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?
That was a rhetorical question, right?
[Update a few minutes later]
Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Obama for declining public financing per se. I think that public financing is an ugly chancre on the body politic, and I cheer when it’s foregone. I wish that McCain would do the same thing. Unfortunately, he’d look even more hypocritical if he did so, due to his having become the point man for all of these idiotic and unconstitutional campaign finance laws. He could use this as an excuse to follow suit, saying that he had no choice, given Obama’s going back on his word, but we all know that if he did, the howls from the media would be deafening.
Well, according to the BBC, he didn’t lie. He just “reversed his promise.”
Well, that’s all right then.
It’s only fair to note that technically, they’re correct. If Obama said it while having no intention of doing it at the time, it would be a lie, but we can’t get into his mind. Sometimes promises aren’t kept, but that doesn’t mean that they were a lie at the time they were made. I was always annoyed when people told me that George H. W. Bush lied when he said “read my lips, no new taxes.” A broken promise is, in fact, not the same as a lie. But it’s a reason to not consider voting for someone.
Just A Coincidence, I’m Sure
RIchard Fernandez connects some dots that may account for Senator Obama’s shifts in Iraq policy:
The shifts in Barack Obama’s policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko’s business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, “this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know.”
For some reason, the MSM doesn’t seem interested in this kind of stuff.
Just A Coincidence, I’m Sure
RIchard Fernandez connects some dots that may account for Senator Obama’s shifts in Iraq policy:
The shifts in Barack Obama’s policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko’s business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, “this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know.”
For some reason, the MSM doesn’t seem interested in this kind of stuff.
The George Romney Democrats
James Kirchick writes that the Democrats are trying to lie their party to victory, and the country to defeat in Iraq:
In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don’t get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were “misled” into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.
Yes. Bill Clinton’s CIA, since George Bush foolishly left George Tenant in charge of it, even after 911, and never even seriously attempted to clean house, other than the failed attempt by Porter Goss. The president got bad intelligence. But the Democrats are being mendacious in their selective memory and rewriting of history.
I loved this:
A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had “brought so light a load to the laundromat.” Given the similarity between Romney’s explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren’t saying the same thing today.
I assume that the last phrase is simply a rhetorical flourish. There’s no reason to wonder at all.
The Top Ten
I’m sure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be weighing in any minute.
[crickets chirping]
What’s Wrong With Redneck?
Andrea Mitchell felt compelled to apologize for calling southwest Virginia “real redneck country.”
Well, she’s right, it is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I think that what she should be apologizing for (which perhaps she is, obliquely) is the insinuation that that’s a bad thing. While I understand that a lot of southerners take umbrage at the word, it’s really just a synonym for Scots-Irish, and it came over with them from England (and no, it has nothing to do with working in the hot sun). It was a phrase used to describe Presbyterians from northern England, who wore red collars. They were the people who settled Appalachia (and other regions). Eastern Virginia (and Maryland and Delaware) was settled by the so-called Cavaliers of southwest England, who had lost the Civil War to the Roundheads.
I think, though, that in the mind of east (and west) coast media elites like Andrea Mitchell, “redneck” is synonymous with “hillbilly,” which is unquestionably an uncomplimentary term, and why the apology was necessary. It’s also a mark of the cultural ignorance of those same media elite about flyover country.
What’s Wrong With Redneck?
Andrea Mitchell felt compelled to apologize for calling southwest Virginia “real redneck country.”
Well, she’s right, it is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I think that what she should be apologizing for (which perhaps she is, obliquely) is the insinuation that that’s a bad thing. While I understand that a lot of southerners take umbrage at the word, it’s really just a synonym for Scots-Irish, and it came over with them from England (and no, it has nothing to do with working in the hot sun). It was a phrase used to describe Presbyterians from northern England, who wore red collars. They were the people who settled Appalachia (and other regions). Eastern Virginia (and Maryland and Delaware) was settled by the so-called Cavaliers of southwest England, who had lost the Civil War to the Roundheads.
I think, though, that in the mind of east (and west) coast media elites like Andrea Mitchell, “redneck” is synonymous with “hillbilly,” which is unquestionably an uncomplimentary term, and why the apology was necessary. It’s also a mark of the cultural ignorance of those same media elite about flyover country.