Our Sick, Edwards-Excusing Media
August 15, 2008
You know there are some in the liberal media who have simply lost touch with reality when the headline reads “John Edwards Cheats on Wife With Cancer” and they ask with great detachment whether he’ll be able to run for office again soon. These people’s morality is so bizarre that they showed more outrage at John McCain featuring a picture of Paris Hilton in a commercial for two eye-blinks than for Edwards catting around on a dying spouse.
For months (and more hotly in the last two weeks), the National Enquirer has been trickling out the goods they collected on John Edwards having an affair and possibly a love child with campaign aide Rielle Hunter, staking out Edwards in a California hotel – and how he hid in the bathroom to avoid them.
There’s a quick campaign ad on the two parties in a nutshell. Republican George Bush took on Osama bin Laden and took out Saddam Hussein. Democrat John Edwards hides in a bathroom from the tabloids.
Throughout this time, the very same media that almost immediately spread unproven trash on John McCain’s alleged “romantic” relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman because the source was the allegedly professional New York Times now remained as quiet as a cabin full of Carthusian monks. Only when everyone was familiar with the story thanks to the New Media and Edwards was forced to confess did the networks break their obedient silence.
Anyone watching the TV stories found a tone of sadness, of the outraged disappointment of Edwards supporters like campaign manager David Bonior. That’s acceptable. But the story came almost entirely from within the Edwards bubble. You couldn’t find in these stories any time for Republicans, and it was rare to find anyone asking not about Edwards, but about the Democrats in general. How would this taint them?
When the question emerged briefly on television, it had a perish-the-thought tone to it. On “Sunday Today” two days after the Edwards confession, NBC anchor Lester Holt asked the apparently unthinkable: “Is Obama touched or tainted by this in any stretch of the imagination?” NBC political analyst Chuck Todd was fervent in his reply: “I don’t think he is at all, Lester. You know, if anything, sure, that they lose a good surrogate. This was a guy who was very good on the stump.”
Holt worried that the Republicans might stoop so low as to speak of Edwards: “Is there any stomach for John McCain perhaps using, taking some political advantage of this, or will he simply leave this alone as a third rail?” (Translation: we would like to make this an untouchable third rail.) Todd was emphatic once again: ” Not at all. They’re probably going to leave this alone. John McCain had to deal with a story that their campaign was very upset about, that The New York Times did. They’re not going to touch this. You know, stuff like this usually ends up getting swept under the rug pretty quickly.”
But the networks didn’t sweep this under the rug. They sat on top of the dirty rug for months while the Enquirer dug out the Edwards affair, and now that it’s out, they want it swept right back under the rug before the Democratic convention. It’s unthinkable (to them) that this should taint the Democrats in any way. Even stranger, Todd thinks that McCain being slimed by the New York Times should shame him into shutting up, when it certainly didn’t provoke any shame within Todd’s profession. They all ran that story without taking a coffee break to investigate the skimpy evidence for themselves.
This is not the network “news” approach when the scandal shoe is on the other foot. Ask yourself: what did Rev. Ted Haggard’s use of drugs and male prostitutes in Colorado have to do with the national Republican Party? Or Mark Foley’s dirty Internet messages to congressional pages? Yet every time they it’s happened to a Republican, the media worked strenuously to spread the tar and underline the damage to the GOP.
What did Larry Craig’s shoe placement in an airport bathroom in 2007 have to do with the Republican Party as a whole? The media treated that story as a much larger scoop than John Edwards cheating on the wife dying of cancer. It was a story that led the news (certainly on Chuck Todd’s NBC) for days and days. Here’s Matt Lauer on day one: “Can the right wing withstand yet another scandal involving one of its own?”
The networks repeatedly displayed the Edwards marriage as a fairy-tale story of two lawyers celebrating their anniversaries over a chocolate Frosty at Wendy’s. Now we know it was bunk. For them to act like there was nothing shameful or hypocritical to expose here is another explicit display of their Democratic favoritism.
Scumbag Politician Admits Cheating On Dying Wife
August 9, 2008
America really dodged a bullet when John Edwards didn’t get the nomination from his party. And his party dodged another bullet when the illicit affair Edwards was having while his wife was undergoing cancer treatment came to light before the philandering lawyer was named as the Number Two on the ticket.
Edwards made the admission at 11:30 EST on a Friday, coinciding with the start of the Olympics, hoping that nobody would notice:
“Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006, I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time.” - John Edwards on ABC’s Nightline
But given the circumstances, if the story broke on the dark side of the moon, it would still make headlines. Edwards, 55, said he told his entire family about the affair after it ended in 2006, and that his wife Elizabeth, who has incurable breast cancer, was “furious” but that their marriage ‘would survive’.
One wonders if the Edwards’ nine year-old Emma and 7 year-old Jack were as understanding as their terminally ill mother about their father’s affair. (In between prayers of thanksgiving that this scumbag will never again hold national office, that is.)
Obama Highlights US ‘Tragic’ Past [Again]
July 30, 2008
I personally would like to see a candidate who doesn’t believe America needs apologizing for.
Senator Barack Obama, speaking to a gathering of minority journalists yesterday, stopped short of endorsing an official U.S. apology to American Indians but said the country should acknowledge its history of poor treatment of certain ethnic groups.
“There’s no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we’ve got some very sad and difficult things to account for,” Obama told hundreds of attendees of UNITY ‘08, a convention of four minority journalism associations.
The Hawaii-born senator, who has told local reporters that he supports the federal recognition bill for native Hawaiians drafted by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, noted other ethnic groups but did not mention native Hawaiians when answering a question about his thoughts on a formal U.S. apology to American Indians.
“I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged,” the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
The Audacity of Vanity
July 19, 2008
by Charles Krauthammer
Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.
He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast — a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins — would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final “tear down this wall” liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called “a Europe whole and free”?
Does Obama not see the incongruity? It’s as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)
Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself.
There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.
Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.
After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down
He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish” — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, ‘merci beaucoup.’” Obama speaks no French.
His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism … that you come out of your isolation. … Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?
We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.
McCain Gets My Vote
July 16, 2008
by Marie Jon’
While some might be undecided on who to vote for this coming Election Day, for others it’s a no-brainer. Although the news media would like us to believe otherwise, there is still an enormous political gap between the Left and the Right.
“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins” — William Pitt
The American people must wake up to the the facts. The Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism, and Barack Obama is — by his record — as far left as one can get in the party.
Sorry America, but we can’t afford an Obama presidency. It would be political and social mayhem having a Democrat House, Senate, Supreme Court and Executive branch. For many decades the United States would be held under the sway of a very unjust, destructive force. Our citizenry would have to deal with the extreme rulings of a Supreme Court gone wild. There would be no more checks and balances.
Liberal judges would change our country’s disposition. Even if Americans were roused from their lethargy and subsequently voted in a Republican president and Congress, it would be too late. They would not be able to neutralize the highest court of the land.
Once a liberal Supreme Court is installed, all traditional values will be null and void. Everything will change to satisfy the progressives’ mind-set. Nothing would be sacrosanct, from the war against terror to the right to bear arms, late-term abortion and the varied definitions of marriage.
America needs a Republican president who will appoint judges to the Supreme Court without a litmus test. Only then can liberalism’s hold of our federal benches be defeated. Our country might then be spared from the dictates of a black-robed oligarchy.
Senator John McCain is not trying to run as a Ronald Reagan conservative. He is a maverick. Yet, even his worst critics understand that our nation would be much better off in the hands of President John McCain than President Barack Obama.
Given this dire grim warning, be aware: Democrats will weaken our economy with their tax policies. A progressive president in the White House will lead to more social and political changes. Many of Obama’s policies would become irreversible. “Change” for the sake of change without collective wisdom is unwise.
Obama claims that he is for change. Indeed, he changes his own political stances with each passing day. Which Barack are Americans voting for? He is so com se comsa. With his gifted, articulate tongue, he speaks disingenuously to perfection.
Image crafting doesn’t have its risks for Obama. Most Democrats trust that if he is voted into office, anything he says that is contrary to what he stood for during the campaign will be shelved. As soon as he is sworn in as president, he will revert right back to his radical liberalism.
Democrats are not grumbling about changes they’ve heard Barack make in his political positions. They understand the game of posturing and pandering to the general electorate. The Rev.Jeremiah Wright had twenty years to mold his protégé.
Senator John McCain, however, can prevent this tragic wayward turn. He will not raise taxes or weaken the economy. He will reduce big government spending.
McCain is a promise-keeper whose presidency will ensure that America will win in Iraq. The new democracy will become a rich Arab nation, free from radical Islamic rule. The Iraqi people will always know that America stood behind them.
Contrary to the propaganda of our own press, we are a humane people who want to help uphold Iraqi sovereignty. Our troops have given their lives to save people who once lived in fear of a hideous despot named Saddam Hussein. As a result, we have reaped many as yet-unquantified dividends. Every day that we spend in Iraq, we are protecting our homeland as well as bringing stability to the Middle East. We’ve won many hearts and minds in Iraq. Our troops have been both protectors and ambassadors of goodwill and freedom.
We will need another strategic plan for Afghanistan. America can put their faith in a war hero who has served in the military. John McCain’s family is steeped in a patriotic history and tradition. They have served their beloved country well. It should come as no surprise that the sons of John and Cindy are military men.
McCain will be a good steward of our recourses. Under his leadership, nuclear power and newly developed oil fields will become realities. There will be many different energy strategies employed to help our nation back on its feet.
Gas prices will begin to tumble to meet the needs of the consumers’ pocketbooks as soon as the word is heard that we are taking care of business. There will be no years of waiting to see fuel prices come down. It is the Democrats who have long promoted doing nothing about finding new oil reserves, building nuclear plants and developing the alternative energy sources they claim to adore. Vote them out!
McCain is a man thinking about America’s future. On all levels — whether environmental, social or political — he is able to weigh in. McCain has been blessed with the wisdom of that comes with age and experience.
There will always be those who vote their party line, no matter how irrational a candidate’s flip-flopping appears to be. Barack Obama has served three years in the Senate (two of them campaigning for President) and was a Chicago street organizer. Has half of America lost their minds? It begs an answer to address his obvious lack of experience and qualifications. There is no substance there, just words.
The sober, sound minds of our country will understand who is best qualified to lead the greatest nation in the world. Let’s pray there are enough of them. Here, there is no doubt. John McCain is for me.
Presumptive Republican US presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and his wife Cindy take the stage. From a celebrated Navy family, Senator McCain is the son and grandson of four-star admirals. He followed in their footsteps by attending the US Naval Academy
Related Readings:
John McCain 2008-John McCain For President Website
For McCain, son’s duty in Iraq is not a talking point
McCain The GOP’s happy warrior
McCain Camp Mocks Obama for ‘Refining’ Iraq Position on Website
About Marie Jon’ Marie Jon’ is a political/religious-based writer and founder of www.DrawingClose.org — a sister website to RenewAmerica. Marie extends her hand of welcome; visit DrawingClose and receive your free gift of salvation by taking an online Bible study. Join Christians from all over the world by becoming a free member of GO Fellowship. The website is a nondenominational gathering of believers.
Marie’s writings have appeared on many sites, including The New Media Journal, ChronWatch, and ABCNews, to name a few. She is a regular columnist for CapitolHillCoffeeHouse, The Daley Times Post, RenewAmerica, The Conservative Voice, Newsbull, GreatAmericanJournal.com, Radiofreewesthartford.com, Conservativecrusader.com, RightSideNews.com and WesternFrontAmerica.com.
Marie brings a refreshing and spirited point of view that is reflected in her writings, as well as genuine and spiritual insights regarding God and his teachings as they pertain to our modern society. Marie is a nurse, a lay student of the Bible, and a patriot. She is an advocate for American troops serving abroad, as well as the Blue and Gold Star Mothers of America and their families. Marie has appeared as a guest with political talk show host Bruce Elliott on WBAL-1090 AM (Saturdays 5AM-9AM EST).
© Copyright 2008 by Marie Jon’
Guilt By Association
June 17, 2008
Suppose that you are a police recruiter who is investigating the background of a potential police recruit. You’ve already done the interview, and you are very impressed.
But during the course of the background investigation, you discover that your candidate has some very shady friends. As you conduct the background check on this guy, you find that while he is clean, all of his friends are heavily involved in organized crime.
Several of the statements he made during his interview were demonstrably false. The more you learn about the guy, the less believable he becomes. When pressed for more detail, he becomes angry and tells you that is none of your business.
John McCain: “Gitmo Worst Decision in History”
June 15, 2008
According to a report in the Financial Times, the Supreme Court decision to grant Gitmo detainees Constitutional guarantees was one of the ‘worst decisions in the history of this country.”
The Republican presidential candidate said he agreed with the four dissenting justices on the nine-member court that foreign fighters held at the detention camp were not entitled to the rights of US citizens.
He criticised Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, for supporting the decision and said it highlighted the importance of nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. His remarks represented a hardening of his position from his more moderate initial response to the ruling on Thursday, signalling a strategic decision by the McCain campaign to make it an election issue.
Mr McCain’s stance appeared designed to demonstrate his toughness on national security, while casting Mr Obama as soft on terrorists. It also looked calculated to spark debate on the future of the Supreme Court – one of the most important election issues for many conservative voters.
But his support for President George W. Bush’s position on Guantánamo risked undermining his appeal among moderates and reinforcing his association with the unpopular president.
Mr McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had previously sought to distance himself from Mr Bush on the treatment of detainees, arguing for Guantánamo to be closed and torture to be banned. He said he stood by those positions on Friday but insisted the Supreme Court ruling would weaken national security. “These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have,” he said. “Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that.”
The debate surrounding Guantánamo has been a complex issue for Mr McCain, a former navy pilot tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. While Mr McCain has been one of the loudest critics of the Bush administration over interrogation policies, he has supported legislation that stripped prisoners at Guantánamo of habeas corpus, the right to challenge their detention in federal court.
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said the Arizona senator’s willingness to support the legislation contradicts his overall position on Guantánamo.
“To this day, he strongly believes Guantánamo has hurt the US and should be closed,” said Mr Malinowski. “And yet he has not been able to distance himself from the principle [of] detention without charge.”
Poll
Loading ...
