American Glob

iOwnTheWorld.com links. Thanks!

Because after all, that strategy worked out really well for Martha Coakley, didn’t it?

The Boston Herald reports…

A worried White House is poised to pull out all the stops in Gov. Deval Patrick’s heated gubernatorial bid – viewed as an early litmus test of whether disenchanted voters are ready to give President Obama’s message of hope and change four more years – or the heave-ho.

A Vineyard-bound Obama and his team already are discussing fall fund-raising appearances with Patrick’s camp and churning out campaign ads while David Axlerod – campaign guru for both Patrick and Obama – chats with Patrick “fairly regularly,” said one source close to the Obama administration.

“If the governor loses, it’s really bad for the president,” a Democratic insider close to the White House said yesterday, pointing out Obama already lost a seemingly sure U.S. Senate seat to Republican upstart Scott Brown.

A quick review of the similarities between Misters Obama and Patrick…

1. Both used David Axelrod as a campaign manager.

2. Meaningless campaign slogan for Deval Patrick: Together We Can.

3. Meaningless campaign slogan for Barack Obama: Yes We Can.

Oh and in case you forgot, their stump speeches were eerily familiar.

UPDATE: Weasel Zippers links. Thanks!

The Democratic Governors Association has its panties in a bunch because Rupert Murdoch’s company News Corp. gave one million dollars to the Republican Governors Association. CNN reports…

With the knowledge that Fox News’ parent company recently cut a $1 million check to the Republican Governors Association, the leader of the Democratic Governors Association is calling on the cable news network to run a “formal disclaimer” when it covers gubernatorial races. “I request that you add a formal disclaimer to your news coverage any time any of your programs cover governors or gubernatorial races between now and Election Day,” DGA executive director Nathan Daschle wrote in the letter to Roger Ailes.

My reaction in two words: SO WHAT?

As I’m sure the Democratic Governors Association is aware, so called “objective journalists” donated more money to Barack Obama than John McCain in the 2008 presidential election by a ratio greater than 10 to 1…

An analysis of federal election records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 margin over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10:1. An even greater disparity, 20:1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10:1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14:1 ratio.

By those standards, maybe the news network truly in need of a disclaimer is every single one except FOX News.

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

Read more at Memeorandum.

After all, how better to go after Sarah Palin than to don ridiculous looking bear costumes? Yeah, that’ll show America how ridiculous you are Palin is. Of course, the best part of this is the headline chosen by The Hill which reads “Liberal Group Launches Attack on Palin.”

Wow. Really? A liberal group is launching an attack on Sarah Palin? Boy, that’s news. I could have sworn that’s been ongoing since the instant John McCain announced her as his running mate two years ago. Dumb headlines aside, here’s how The Hill describes the situation…

Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock detailed the group’s new “Sarah Doesn’t Speak for Me” campaign during an availability Tuesday morning at the National Press Club. The campaign is part of an effort to combat Palin’s effect in this fall’s elections and push back against her slate of candidates.

The campaign will center at first on a new website, which highlights some of the more controversial things Palin and her candidates have said during the election cycle.

“We created this campaign because we didnt want women across the country to think that there is only one voice for women, and we didn’t want Sarah Palin’s voice to go unchallenged,” Schriock said.

Good for you, Stephanie. Sarah Palin has had it way too easy in the media. It’s about time some liberal activists stood up and criticized the former governor. Great video, by the way. If the political activism thing doesn’t work out, you can always fall back on a career in furry fetishism.

The video is full of inaccuracies. Sarah Palin has never said she wants to take away a woman’s right to choose. Republicans have never tried to take away unemployment benefits, and on and on. But then, when have liberal activists ever let facts get in the way of their agenda?

Be sure to check out what others are saying about this at Memeorandum.

Unless you were planning to vote for Obama in 2008, you might have wondered if some members of the liberal media were actively trying to destroy Sarah Palin on a personal and political level from the moment John McCain announced her as his running mate.

Guess what… You were right.

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].”

Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.

“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.

Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”

Read it all.

I sincerely hope the “JournoListers” know that an ever growing number of Americans are going to the polls this November with them in mind.

UPDATE: This sums it up pretty well.

Turns out, pretty much everything you’ve heard about liberal bias in the media is true. The Daily Caller has proof that shows liberal “journalists” conspired to use the government to shut down FOX News.

God forbid there’s ONE news network in America that appeals to conservatives…

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

I want to know if the Obama Administration was in on this.

Remember the fall of 2009 when the White House attacked FOX News, saying it wasn’t a real news organization? Where did that idea come from?

Could this Journolist scandal be worse than Watergate? Yes it can.

See the video below from fall 2009 where former Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, a big fan of Chairman Mao, accuses FOX News of being an arm of the Republican Party.

Projection much, Anita?

AND says he has tape of racism taking place at a dinner event for the NAACP.

Andrew Breitbart has more balls than a Florida driving range. Do yourself a favor and listen to this.

Via Breitbart TV.

Specifically on the issue of illegal immigration…

Long pilloried for being soft on illegal immigration, top Democratic officials have concluded there’s only one way they can hope to pass a comprehensive immigration bill:

Talk more like Republicans.

They’re seizing on the work of top Democratic Party operatives who, after a legislative defeat in 2007, launched a multiyear polling project to craft an enforcement-first, law-and-order, limited-compassion pitch that now defines the party’s approach to the issue.

The 12 million people who unlawfully reside the country? Call them “illegal immigrants,” not “undocumented workers,” the pollsters say.

Is this the ultimate admission of failure, hypocrisy or both?

Remember, this is the same party that stood up and applauded when President Calderon of Mexico insulted the State of Arizona on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This is the same party that has repeatedly used Arizona’s new illegal immigration law for their own political benefit.

Pathetic.

Since Democrats are trying to sound like Republicans, is it any surprise that they’re starting to throw their support to Charlie Crist?

The left has been in full screech mode for over a week now, trying to prove that a Tea Party attendee spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D, MO) as he walked to the House of Representatives. The video shows a man cupping his hands into a makeshift megaphone as the congressman passes by and the left is just convinced that this is irrefutable evidence that the man spit on the congressman.

Did he actually spit? I doubt it. But let’s talk about spitting and while we’re at it, let’s discuss some other bodily fluids.

I realize I’m a little late to this story but it occurred to me that very few people on both sides of the debate have mentioned a similar yet far more shocking incident. At the Republican National Convention in 2008, a group of leftists calling themselves The RNC Welcoming Committee, was waiting to ambush RNC attendees.

In fact, were it not for diligent law enforcement authorities in Minnesota, these leftist scumbags were prepared to hurl buckets of human urine and feces at RNC attendees, delegates, and congressmen. The photo below was taken after a raid at the RNC Welcoming Committee’s HQ. Among assorted weapons, the buckets of human waste can be seen in the lower left. Click the image to enlarge.

So to all you hyperventilating Dems, Progressives and media types (same difference) I ask, which is worse? A spitting incident which you can’t definitively prove but also can’t stop talking about? Or a very real and verifiable incident that would have had far more disgusting results without the intervention of law enforcement and about which you never reported?

Want to know what I believe, Democrats/Media? I believe there was no outrage from you over this because you would have liked it! Oh, sure if you were pressed to comment in public you’d say the right things, but deep down you would have been snickering to yourselves to see Republicans doused in human filth.

So why don’t you file your spittle outrage stories in the same place you put your non-coverage of the RNC Welcoming Committee.

Wake me up when conservatives get caught red handed by cops with a plan to throw buckets of human waste at you.

Then we’ll talk.

In related news, Satan appeared on planet Earth today and credited himself with the founding of Christianity.

Are you freaking kidding me?

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Biden and Obama opposed every single aspect of the Iraq War.

Biden and Obama opposed and criticized the Iraq surge.

Biden and Obama farmed every political talking point they could find to oppose the Bush Administration on Iraq.

Biden and Obama continue to bash their predecessors every chance they get.

And now they want to take credit for the success in Iraq???

Oh, but wait!

Sarah Palin has something written on her hand!!!!