Category Archives: MSM

Skewed Titles to Columns

Posted on by

Today in the NYTimes, John Howard of Australia explains what he did in Australia after the massacre in Tasmania. He essentially confiscated all the guns there.
They removed about 700,000 guns there. (population 22,821,000). 3%.

He’s saying that’s the equivalent of 40million guns here.
But that’s beside the point. He notes this:

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

He goes on to explain how he worked with the states to confiscate the guns.

Here’s his ending:

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

The title of this column?
“I went after guns. Obama can too.”

Based on what??

I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

How about a different title. “What John Howard did in Australia about gun violence” or “How the Australian system worked so that I could confiscate guns” or any number of other titles.

The bold in my first cut notes he’s happy he didn’t have to deal with a Bill of Rights. So how about “How the Bill of Rights can hamper gun confiscation” or “state cooperation in gun removal” or “How the Bill of Rights is making you unsafe” or any number of other titles.
Bizarre.

QOTD

Posted on by

From George Will: [bold is mine]

The media, which often are the last to know things because their wishes father their thoughts, say the tea party impulse is exhausted. Scores of House Republicans and seven first-term Republican senators (Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Tim Scott) will soon — hello, debt ceiling — prove otherwise.

Posted in MSM

Keep Spinning those Stories MSM

Posted on by

Today we see more on the narrative.

This column on corporations working to convince people to do what they can to avoid the fiscal cliff really tries to be neutral at the beginning even making this very good point:

And yet the calls go unheeded. The nation can’t rise above, or come together, or fix the debt, for some very good reasons. On issue after issue—global warming, tax cuts, even personal economic feeling—Democrats and Republicans see the world differently. In fact, it often seems as though they represent two different countries.

Then, it fails:

The Republicans, who still command a majority in the House thanks to gerrymandered districts, are shrinking to a rural and Southern core. (There isn’t a single GOP representative east of the Hudson River, save Peter King of Long Island, which is really part of its own universe.) The Democrats dominate the urbanized coasts and the industrial Midwest.

The more the Republicans lose, the more stubborn and obstinate they become. They don’t want to do a deal with President Obama. They don’t want to compromise on taxing. They want to rip up the safety net, except for the portion that covers those who are already receiving benefits. They have said so, over and over again, to the press, to their own leaders, to anybody who will listen. The Democrats, having won two presidential elections in a row, are in no mood to rip up the greatest achievements of generations of Democratic presidents in exchange for smaller tax cuts than would be achieved by going over the fiscal cliff. And it seems unlikely that either side will have a big change of heart in the few remaining working days.

Republicans apparently came to be elected through gerrymandering (aka cheating) while Democrats are just popular. Republicans are obstinate as they lose and “don’t want to deal” and “don’t want to compromise”. They “rip” safety nets.
Democrats are unwilling to let go of “great achievements”.

Try this one, entitled “Tax fairness and the wealthy” by unknown Ray D. Madoff. I opened it thinking it may possible be a reasonable position but look at his opener. By agreeing to let taxes go up on millionaires, this author has determined that Boehner agreed that taxes “must go up”.

While there appears — or, at least, appeared — to be some agreement between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner that taxes on the wealthy must go up, the amount of the increase remains undecided.

And just like that the narrative has changed.
The GOP agrees!!! Taxes must go up!!

Whoa Baby – the Truth Comes Out!

Posted on by

Right here in the big ol MSM, the truth about those evil “Bush Tax Cuts” has seen the light.

They are now the tax cuts that are an absolute requirement for the good of the country. (except for those rich people’s versions)

President Obama has put the extension of the tax cuts for most Americans at the top of his domestic agenda, a remarkable turnaround for Democrats, who had staunchly opposed the tax breaks when they were written into law about a decade ago.

Next on the MSM agenda will be approval of enhanced interrogation as multiple drone strikes result in lack of intelligence. [click through for a good list of questions that need to be asked]

Benghazi! Petraeus! Fiscal Cliff! Sandy!

Posted on by

There are so very many stories out there that need telling.
So today, on a Monday – the beginning of the workweek when you set your compass for the week, what does Washington Post believe is the BEST above the fold story for the day?

A story entitled:

GOP’s Red America forced to rethink what it knows about the country

Which is fine in itself, (it’s kind of a story) except it’s the story of one woman. One woman who is very much of the religious right (kids can’t read Harry Potter), who is disappointed in the election and thinks the country will never be the moral land that she believed in.

It takes 3 clicks to get through the story. Three click to get through a story on ONE WOMAN who is only missing being a male to be what the left believes is a typical Republican.
Front page, above the fold.

How do you beat this kind of coverage that occurs over and over and over?
Libertarians and Republicans have got to quit being what Clint called “conservative” in the way they communicate. We have got to stand up every time, no matter how often attacked and told that we’re mean and we have to defend the MORAL truth that is conservative ideals. Every time. You, me, we can no longer stand by when someone quietly asserts that “the government should do something” about something.

I’ve gotten better, but I am a long way from 100%. Who has the energy? Must. Dig. Deeper. Because we have things like this dumb ass story to deal with.

Posted in MSM

Dear Voters,

Posted on by

Dear Voters,
This is just a reminder to you.

If you are white and vote for Romney and Romney wins, we all know it’s because you’re racist.

If you are black and vote for Obama and Obama wins, we all know it’s just demographics and that the right has nothing for you.

See we know this because everyone is concerned about the economy, but minorities who have suffered the most, will be voting for Obama.
(say what?!)

There is no way to tell from these findings what role, if any, racial prejudice may play on either side of the racial gap. But the data suggest that concern about the economy is amplifying the division, as Obama’s decline in support among white voters appears to be closely linked to views of his handling of the economy. And yet minorities have suffered severe unemployment and housing foreclosures in the current economy as well.

Oh – and ps – If Romney wins, don’t worry, because white voters are decreasing by 2% per year which means that the Dems will get the upper hand soon. (No, sorry young Timmy minorities will NOT every go right, because they vote on the issues.)

I’m white. I’ll take my chances at being called a racist. Again.

pps, Read Peggy Noonan’s piece today. During the last election she, unlike me, was tricked into being ‘not a racist’. This year, she’ll be a racist because the real Obama has shown himself. Per the WAPO, that real Obama is scary black, not just simply scary.

ppps, In reality, I am not buying today. “The country” proved it wasn’t racist in the last election by voting in a black man. During this election “the country” can prove it isn’t racist again by judging our current President by the content of his character vs his color.
 Yay.

pppps Horrible ad.
Speaking of the character of the left:

but it comes with these quotables
via National Review’s Morning Jolt: (you really should sign up)

Andrea Chapman: “You don’t want your first time to be with #Obama because his stimulus package didn’t deliver as promised.”

Kristina Ribali: “Be careful ladies . . . You don’t want to be punished with an Obama.”

It continues to be weird that Democrats want so bad to have sex with their cult leader. But I guess that’s a central part of the cult thing.

Tim Carney: “‘Voting is like sex,’ Romney’s a ‘bull*****er,’ ‘Romnesia,’ ‘Big Bird.’ I thought you had to be older than 15 to be President.”

Jimmie Bise: “Unintended consequence of the new Obama campaign ad? Guys everywhere now hesitant to vote early.”

“If you’ll excuse me, I have to go bleach my eyes,” apologizes Rusty Weiss at the Mental Recession. “Word of advice libs — if voting for Obama is like having sex . . . you’re doing it wrong!”

(sigh) Yeah.

Now this is a great ad. I can easily see President Romney in here:

In. The. Tank.

Posted on by

From the LATimes via Google News.

My head is spinning this morning as a story out of the LATimes headlined “No evidence found of Al Qaeda Role in Libya Attack” (which would be true because Ansar al-Shariah is not the same as Al-Qaeda though they are sympathetic) then goes on to say:

WASHINGTON — The assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi last month appears to have been an opportunistic attack rather than a long-planned operation, and intelligence agencies have found no evidence that it was ordered by Al Qaeda, according to U.S. officials and witnesses interviewed in Libya.

It goes on to mention the controversy and then talks about Republicans saying it was al-Qaeda and Obama should have said that, but in reality, all anyone is saying is “militants” and “planned” and “not connected to any riot going on”.

This story is effing amazing in it’s ability to spin for Obama.

Republicans have zeroed in on possible Al Qaeda ties to the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, and have criticized the Obama administration for not saying early on that it was an act of terrorism. But after five weeks of investigation, U.S. intelligence agencies say they have found no evidence of Al Qaeda participation.

and

A second U.S. official added, “There isn’t any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance.” Most of the evidence so far suggests that “the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” earlier that day, the official said.

The lack of a firm Al Qaeda link could constrain U.S. military options.

Here’s how the story ends.

Republicans began portraying the attack as the work of Al Qaeda, and they accused the administration of deliberately seeking to downplay that possibility.

Now, however, said another official with access to the intelligence, “it may turn out that the initial assessment was not that far off.”

In other news we get:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

Let’s say it again. LATimes – In.The. Tank.

UPDATE: Apparently there are others in the tank as well as the highly respected Stephen Hayes writes on this story.

The Obama administration appears to be mounting yet another version of its campaign to push back on claims that it misled on the intelligence related to the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12. But the new offensive by the administration, which contradicts many of its earlier claims and simply disregards intelligence that complicates its case, is raising fresh questions in the intelligence community and on Capitol Hill about the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.

Just Links on the Debate

Posted on by

The Diplomad 2.0

Romney was an encyclopedia. Obama could not bring up a subject on which Romney did not have an impressive array of well-organized facts. Romney presented an action plan to the American people to create jobs, generate revenue, reduce deficits, and seek North American energy independence. He would not let Obama get away with anything.

and

Romney gave Obama a lesson in economics, finance, and the role of government that should be taped and shown in schools all over the country. All Obama could do was string together disconnected talking points and try to seek some relief from Romney’s assault by citing the areas where he and Romney agree.

I was astounded by how often Obama said that he and “the governor agree on this”. Why would he do that except to essentially concede that Romney will make a great point if he hasn’t already, but don’t worry, we agree.
…………………

Tons of “fact checks” today on Romney. Not too many on Obama, though his numbers on medicare and Obamacare and tax cuts and program cuts were completely whacked. However, here’s a fun fact check on Obama. (not debate related)
The no votes on the Katrina Stafford Act waiver, include on by Obama and one by Clinton. This is the act he was whining about in the “explosive video” that came out on Monday.

…………………
Jennifer Rubin is spot on. Go read the whole thing.

Romney effectively skewered excess regulations, calling Dodd-Frank the “biggest kiss” to big banks he’s ever seen. The president strained to respond, accusing Romney of wanting to get rid of all regulations. Romney hit back, telling him the measure was killing small banks and designating the big banks as too big to fail. He got into the weeds, going after Dodd-Frank for making mortgages harder to get.

When the conversation got to Obamacare, Romney ticked through the reasons to get rid of it, including its impact on job creation and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. He scolded Obama for working on Obamacare for two years, rather than focusing on jobs. Bizarrely, the president pointed to Romneycare in defense of Obamacare. Romney blew him back by saying his plan didn’t cut Medicare, didn’t put a board in place to cut care and didn’t raise taxes or force people to drop their current coverage. He stressed that his was a bipartisan effort. It was a stunningly effective performance.

Oddly, Obama defended the IPAB, saying it was a fine idea because it was made up of experts. Huh? Romney went back to skewer him on that point (“15 people telling us what kind of care” we can have) and spoke passionately about private-sector innovation. Obama looked extremely annoyed, stumbling when trying to mischaracterize Romney’s plan. He began to flail, complaining about Romney’s tax and regulatory plans.

………………..
Perfect out of the National Review(and may I say I am impressed with the turns of phrase today):

Is this therefore a game-changing moment? Not necessarily. But what Mitt did was to expose the president as the Primo Carnera of his day, the mob-owned heavyweight champ who won a series of fixed fights — until he finally found himself in the ring against an opponent who didn’t fear him, and who was more than happy to whale on him, especially once Romney figured out that Obama couldn’t hurt him. Meanwhile, Obama kept looking over at Mitt with a “I can’t believe you know all this stuff” look on his face, while periodically casting beseeching glances at moderator Jim Lehrer, hoping to be saved by a bell that never came.

………………….
Great quote:

s Tom Stemberg, Co-founder and former CEO of Staples said to Neil Cavuto, following the debate, “President Obama is terrific on his feet when no one is challenging him to the facts.”

…………………
And here’s a funny headline from the LATimes:

Mitt Romney makes smooth shift to center in debate with Obama

………………..
The Washington Post said it was full of evasions. I thought Romney did NOT evade and was not his “talking points” which is why I loved it.

The Post’s View
In presidential debate, Obama, Romney evaded the hard truths