Posts Tagged ‘Presidential Election’

Documentary Review: Media Malpractice

Saturday, May 23rd, 2009

Can anyone honestly review the media’s coverage of the 2008 Presidential election and say that the media wasn’t completely in the tank for then-Senator Barack Obama? Didn’t think so. To that end, libertarian filmmaker John Ziegler put together his documentary/expose, Media Malpractice, to give evidence to the former statement. And after watching this documentary, I would suggest that it is required viewing for those who study the media or have an interest in how the American media has fallen apart.

As I looked at some reviews of this documentary on the web, I was shocked by the amount of detractors who suggested that Ziegler was your typical, aggravated conservative who was frustrated with his party’s candidate and is now lashing out. Well, that’s a ton of a bullshit if there ever was some! Ziegler is a committed libertarian and has only ever donated money to democratic politicians. Sounds like a regular Rush Limbaugh, right?

Thought not.

From my view, the documentary really dives into two major issues in the 2008 campaign. First, it looks at how the media deliberately paid no serious attention to the various three alarm fires associated with Senator Obama. For example, the audiotape that came out a few days before the election where Obama specifically cited that previous supposedly-liberal Supreme Courts had not gone far enough into redistributing wealth and addressing issues of economic justice. Second, the documentary looks at how the media absolutely destroyed Alaska Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. When you watch the various attacks played in succession, it’s enough to turn your stomach.

People like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric twisted and bent Palin’s previous statements and then asked her to respond. And when Palin questioned their phrasing of the questions, they lashed out at her like she was a dummy! The thing that always got me about Palin is that she’s just a regular Mom who rose up the political ranks. When she suggested that she was your typical “hockey Mom,” I can see that being true! And it shows you the vast disconnect between the media and regular Americans that they didn’t “get it.”

Understanding Palin boils down to one of the major issues that Bill O’Reilly has been going on about for years now – class warfare; the “elites” versus regular citizens. I put “elite” in quotations because most of the people who fall into this category may not even realize it. For example, I have friends (conservative, liberal, and independent) who have no idea that think in terms of class warfare and their “class” being better than those “below” them. It’s frustrating and a topic for another entry at another time.

There were some portions of Ziegler’s that will stick with me. Maybe the most glaring is how completely biased Katie Couric was in her interview with Palin. And, specifically, how Katie took Senator John McCain’s two major regulatory battles in the realm of the housing meltdown (his relentless pursuit of tighter oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) off of the table when she asked Palin to explain what McCain had done to help stave off the mortgage meltdown. That’s the equivalent of asking someone, “Other than red, white, and blue, what other colors are there on the flag of the United States of America?”

What?

And the documentary also does a good job of talking about how certain issues were blown up to mean much more than they actually did (i.e. race). If you look at the exit polls, race meant nothing to the voters. By and large, the voters went for Obama because they found what the media suggested that he stood for as a good thing (the nebulous concept of “change”). I have no issues with the voters voting anyway they choose, but to constantly use race as a battering ram against anyone who would even think to mention it (such as former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro) is absurd. Sure, if a pundit tried to use it as a negative, then they should have been criticized, but over and again that was not the case.

Watching Media Malpractice gives you a plethora of such aggravating and disgusting examples of the media’s bias. But, as has been reported on this blog by both my entries and my readers via their comments – the American mass media is a complete joke. It is an empire that has forgotten what unbiased reporting is supposed to be about and is, instead, dominated by profits and ratings. Just like now is the perfect time for a third party to rise at the national level, now is the perfect time for us as a nation to turn our backs on the biased media and support independent sources of news and citizen-led media.

In any event, if you have an interest in this stuff, then I suggest that you check out Media Malpractice. You’ll be as disgusted with the mainstream media as I am.

We’re Off to See The Wizard…

Sunday, November 9th, 2008

Keeping with my earlier post reviewing Gregory Maguire’s novel entitled Wicked, below is a picture that my Mom sent over that manages to address both the original Wizard of Oz and the 2008 Presidential election:

Wizard of Oz

Ha ha ha! I got a kick out of that – especially while reading Wicked with election coverage on in the background!

Where Do The Republicans Go From Here?

Saturday, November 1st, 2008

Though this post might be a bit early, all of the polls are suggesting that this Tuesday is going to bring big gains for the Democrats in the Congress. Oh, and then there’s that whole Presidential election, where it is likely that Barack Obama will bring the White House back to the Democratic Party. The Democrats are looking at holding a solid majority in the House, Senate, and the White House for the first time since 1992. And it’s looking more and more like the Democrats will wind up with 60 seats in the Senate after the election, giving them a filibuster-proof majority.

Halloween was yesterday, but this is a frightening proposition.

Now settle down my little extremist minded readers. I am not suggesting that this is scary because the majority of our government will be Democrats. Rather it is scary because one party will have complete control of the American government (the Supreme Court ideologies do not count). That’s not right. Of course, the Republicans have had this coming to them for a while now. The Republicans took over the American government and did not bring the change that the people wanted. It’s funny, though, how in the wake of President Bush’s second term the nation forgets about the Democratic scandals of the last two decades. It’s even funnier that this country is dominated by a vicious, disgustingly biased media. But I digress…

What will the Republicans do if they fail as miserably this coming Tuesday? Frankly, it’s time for the GOP to go back to the drawing board. They had their opportunity to make a difference in American government and they failed. I see two paths for the Republicans in the wake of a pending disaster on Election Day.

First, they can choose to take up a truly moderate position on all of the major issues. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a think tank called American Solutions. This group has taken a variety of polls showing how 80% – 90% of Americans agree on certain issues. For example, polls show that 87% of Americans support English as the official language of the United States. Another example – 81% support greater use of domestic energy sources to fuel America’s future. Great.

The Republicans can choose to be the champions of these bipartisan issues and use this stance to win back some of the good graces of the American public.

The second direction the party can go from here is highly unlikely, but still a possibility. In short, the party can break up into various factions. Let’s face it, John McCain is not the same Republican as is George W. Bush; just as Elizabeth Dole is not the same type of Republican as Arnold Schwarzenegger; just as Christine Todd Whitman is certainly a different type of Republican than John Ashcroft. The fact is that there are too many different “types” of Republicans and this is a bad thing. Why is it a bad thing? Look at the current election cycle. There will be Republicans who lose Senate or House seats because there is an “R” after their name on the ballot. Sure, they may disagree with all of the policies of the current administration, but they’re about to get punished anyway.

Why not have a Conservative Republican party? Why not a Constitutional Republican party or a Traditional Republican party? Trust me, I understand why the power structures at the top of the Republican party would never allow this to happen (ca-ching!), but it might be time for the candidates (present and future) to take this party into their own hands. If you’re running as a Republican in San Francisco, guess what? You lose. But what if you ran as a candidate in a Liberal Republican party? What if you could disassociate with the stigmas and stereotypes of a nationwide organization?

With all of this being said, I have to say that I believe if Obama wins the election it will be very hard for him to win re-election. My reasoning is exactly the same as above. If the Democrats win the big majorities in the Congress, then it doesn’t matter who sits in the White House because the Senate Majority leader will rule the legislative agenda of the country. I believe that this country will experience a major shift to the left in the coming years and it might be too big of a swing for many to take. Obama needs to watch out for that if he’s sitting in the White House…but first he has to win the election.

What does “Change” mean to you?

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Pretty much all of the polls show that Barack Obama is ahead in the Presidential election. Though we’re still far away from ballots being cast, I was thinking earlier about what “change” means to me. About six months ago I posted about the danger of harping on change in an election – let’s see if my idea of change as dangerous holds up!

To me, change means living a better life in all aspects. Financial change means that that I will not have to be a slave to the workforce just to make enough money to get by in New Jersey. It means that I can continue to be a higher earner like I currently am, but that I won’t have $100,000+ in student loan debt holding me back from buying a house or starting a family. What good is a high paying job if you can’t use that extra income to advance yourself, your family, or your friends in society? I began to “change” this aspect of my life two years ago by sticking to a strict budget and I’ve been in good fiscal shape ever since. If I vote for Barack Obama will he pass a law that says college graduates with a 3.9 or 4.0 GPA will be forgiven from their student loans so long as they have gainful employment for a certain number of years? There are current policies in place that allow that, but they are 10 year plans and I don’t quite fit them. Will any change Obama makes be retroactive? That’s a change I’m looking for!

Speaking of money, change means that the value of the dollar will go up without more of my own dollars being funneled through Washington. Further, change means that I will not have to give up large percentages of my paycheck just to pay for gas.

Which brings me to environmental/societal change. If I vote for change then I expect alternative energy sources to be realities in the next four years. I expect that the next time I drive from New Jersey to Chicago or from New Jersey to Nashville I won’t see hundreds and hundreds of miles of nothing. There will be windmills generating clean power for thousands, possibly millions, of people. There will be hybrid, fuel cell, and hydrogen cars all over the road. That’s real change.

Voting for change means that I will no longer have to look at local school districts and see abysmal achievement rates. Going to school in the Asbury Park, Camden, or Newark public school system won’t be a matter of life and death, but rather a matter of choosing which college to attend at the end of your senior year. Why should going to school in an inner city mean any less of an education for students? Further, why should those students who live in small, rich suburbs have their parents’ property tax dollars moved from their district to an inner city district? Income redistribution is a socialist concept and not one worthy of America’s time. Change will occur when our education system pumps out scholars, scientists, and math geniuses instead of worker bees.

Immigration needs to be changed. If I vote for change I expect that the laws of my country will finally be respected since they are not respected now. I expect that we, as a country, will change our belief of “Multiculturalism as King” and instead join the rest of the world in their view of immigrants: they are to be welcomed, rejoiced over, and assimilated. Why America is afraid to assimilate its newest members is beyond me. Hell, most of these people know more about American history than those who are born here! And we can’t make English the official language of this country? If I vote for change, do I get to call English my official language?

What about law enforcement. When I was a college student members of the Ocean Township Police Department walked into my home at all hours of the night because they were, “just checking.” As a college student I had no way to combat this disgusting abuse of my and my roommates’ civil rights. Who do you call when the cops are the ones breaking the law? That’s just my story. What about the police officers who fire 50+ bullets into one person in less than ten seconds and aren’t punished for it? How does a candidate balance the idea of change with the knowledge that without standing behind law enforcement officials, he will lose the faith of those who are supposed to protect us? Can “change” achieve a healthy balance?

Think about all of these issues and think about what the idea of “change” means to you? Is it just a rallying cry (yes)? Or is there something concrete in YOUR life that you can point to and say, “Hey! If I vote for the change candidate I will benefit in this way: ____________.”

I’m just taking a shot in the dark here, but we’ve already talked about how the “new politics” doesn’t exist in this Presidential race and chances are the change candidate is nothing more than momentum and empty promises. Which gets to another point – who is making the promises?

With Obama running around saying change and yes we can, he’s making a brilliant political move. He’s wearing no face. In other words, the voters can see him in any light they wish! And how do voters define that light? By the issue of change in their minds. So I see a man who will help abolish student loans for those who graduate with near a 4.0 GPA while someone else sees a man who will change the inner cities by raising middle income taxes. Then there are the middle income people who see a candidate that will not raise their taxes and instead demand that those in the inner cities become more self-sufficient by refusing to continue government handouts and thus lowering the costs of government!

These are two diametrically opposed view points that Barack can point to and say, “Yes we can!” Well…no you can’t! It’s one or the other – you can’t have them both! As Joan Rivers said on Stern this morning, “What change? Show me the change already!”

Can a candidate really run on the idea of “change” and make the majority of his supporters happy? I don’t think so. That said, I still think we’re going to get Barack in the White House next January – he’s got the uncritical masses behind him who harp on Iraq and that’s all he needs to win the election.

What the Presidential Election Does NOT Need

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

The talking heads on television keep telling us how historic this election is in that we have the first black nominee (presumptive though he may be at this point) and the oldest person to run for a first term as President. Obviously Obama’s campaign is more historic that McCain’s campaign so I think the future will remember this as the Obama election – whether he wins or loses.

With such an historic campaign there are a few things that we do NOT need this time around. First and foremost, I get physically ill every time I hear Barack Obama say that John McCain is running for George Bush’s third term. What a disgusting catchphase to use in this “historic” election! John McCain is John McCain. George Bush is George Bush. John McCain is running for his first term. Obama’s comparison of John McCain to George Bush is obviously rooted in politics and polls since most of the nation is sick of Bush at this point and the Obama team is trying to capitalize on that disgust. THIS is the new politics that Obama promised? Count me out, thank you. As soon as I heard these words come out of Obama’s mouth, I immediately shut off my brain from listening to any other drivel come out of this man.

But lo and behold the brain trust running McCain’s campaign goes out and tells McCain to say that Obama is running for Jimmy Carter’s second term! Good grief! Is this the John McCain that ran as a maverick politician in 2000 and has based his entire political career off of doing what he believed was right over what his political party believed was right? THIS is what I can expect from John McCain going forward? No thanks. At this point, you can count me out. This is NOT the new politics that these men promised America and I urge everyone else who wants true change to withdraw support from either candidate until they stop throwing this type of mud.

The disguised shots at McCain’s age and the pathetic shots at Obama’s personal advisors are all too much to bear. I encourage everyone to start exploring third party candidates if they are really looking for change this year. For starters, go and take a look at Bob Barr – the Libertarian Party candidate.

Change doesn’t mean voting for the same party or a candidate with flowery speeches, folks. Change means using YOUR vote to make a REAL change in America.


© 1996 - 2010 Usable Web Solutions, LLC
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

All content is exclusive to this site and may be reprinted only with express written permission of the Owner of this site.
Privacy Policy | Contact Us