Line of attack on Palin coordinated by JournoList

The pathetic true colors of the mainstream liberal media continue to be exposed.  Seems they didn’t like that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running mate in 2008.

In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.

But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”

“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point.  Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].” (Source: Daily Caller)

Safe to say the MSM is truly the lapdog of the Democratic Party and President Barack Hussein Obama yet?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

Advertisements

Uninformed voters

(H/T – Peter via Silent E)

Interesting post-election video on how Barack Hussein Obama got elected:

Here are corresponding survey results:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Pathetic that the media decided this election by not educating the electorate instead letting their BIAS dictate reporting.  Shame on those voters who didn’t take the time to research the candidates on their own & listened to the media drivel  about “hope & change” instead.  

Want to find out more about Zeigler’s documentary, go here.

Lesson learned?

Shoebox over at No Runny Eggs has a great piece on the lesson of the 2008 Presidential election. I don’t think the RINO’s will be happy with the analysis.

Great point on who runs (ran?) the show.

The Republican leadership is at best, moderate.  They believe they reflect their party and the broader electorate.  Remember the guffawing from Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy when, caught via a “hot mike” were heard ridiculing the choice of Sarah Palin because her choice by McCain was “cynical.”  Their point was that no one in the Republican party (read that leadership) believes what Palin believes.  Party Leaders, moderate and believing to be reflective of the electorate, they wanted one of their own.

More revealing was the look at exit polling from the last 32 years.

First, there are some who believe that we have become an electorate that is at least more moderate if not sliding to the liberal side. While there is some movement from year to year, you’ll notice that for the most part, the electorate, at least as they describe themselves, looks pretty much today as it did in 1976. In 1976, the electorate was 20%, 48% and 31% Liberal, Moderate and Conservative respectively. In 2008 the same split was 22%, 44% and 34%. If anything, the moderates have become slightly smaller as the electorate becomes a bit more polarized.

Second, note that with the exception of Reagan’s first term against Carter, no Republican has won without getting at least 80% of the Conservative vote. Reagan’s shortage of Conservative support can be attributed to some being split off to Anderson along with the fact that the election of that year had the smallest percentage of the electorate describing themselves as Conservative.  At any rate, it seems pretty clear that if a Republican doesn’t hold 80% of thieir base, they have little if any chance to win the election.  Interestingly, the same parallel does not hold for Democrats.  Democrats can win with less than 80% of the liberal vote, note Carter and Clinton’s first runs.  Only in Clinton’s second run, and now Barack Obama, have liberals supported the Democrat candidate with greater than 80%.

Finally, let’s look at those moderates.  Note that since 1976, Only Reagan’s landslide victory of 1984 garnered greater than 50% of the moderate support for Republicans.  Of course, Reagan also achieved a modern high of 29% amongst liberals.  Other than that instance, no Republican has gained greater than 50% of the moderate’s support.  More typical has been the Bush victories where mid 40% of the moderates supported the Republican.

Shoebox also points out who won a whopping 60% of the moderate vote by not running to the center.  That’s right Barack Hussein Obama!

Proof that the current leadership is inept and needs to be replaced by true Conservatives.  Perhaps this year’s clock-cleaning can accomplish something the 2006 disaster didn’t – a move back to basic first principles as Conservatives take back the party of Reagan.

Obama win ignored

Big issue being made about the election of Barack Hussein Obama as President being ignored by some newspapers.

http://www.truveo.com/Newspaper-ignores-Obama-win/id/40672400

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=300810&shu=1

If the focus of a local newspaper is LOCAL NEWS what’s the issue?