1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Mad Libs

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Angus, Sep 13, 2008.

  1. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Mad Libs
    Palin Derangement Syndrome overwhelms the media.

    by William Kristol
    09/22/2008, Volume 014, Issue 02

    The liberal media are angry. Very, very angry. How do we know? Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's chronicler of all things media, says so:

    "The media are getting mad. Whether it's the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches. Maybe it's a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there's anything new about that)."

    Of course, politicians are always trying to manipulate the media. And the liberal media are always allowing themselves to be manipulated by liberal politicians. So why the foot-stamping snit by liberal journalists? Not because "the press is being manipulated." Rather, because the American people are resisting manipulation by the media.

    For, as Kurtz goes on to say, the media "are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign." In other words, the media are going after McCain. In his piece Kurtz cites two allegedly false claims from McCain ads that are in fact basically true--or, at least, no more one-sided than dozens of other campaign ads. Back when Barack Obama was coasting toward victory, normal campaign exaggerations ("You know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years") didn't fill the media with loathing for Obama. Now the McCain camp's exaggerations do.

    Why? Because McCain is doing well. And because Sarah Palin is surviving--even flourishing--in the midst of
    the liberal media onslaught.

    When the media get mad, they don't just pout. They pounce. How? By any means necessary. The day of Kurtz's article, September 11, ABC's Charlie Gibson conducted his first interview of Sarah Palin. Gibson asked: "You said recently, in your old church, 'Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.' Are we fighting a holy war?"

    Palin responded, "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."

    "Exact words," Gibson triumphantly retorted.

    Not so fast. As Palin explained, quite eloquently, what she was saying was in the spirit of Lincoln: "Let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side." The tape of Palin's church appearance bore out her interpretation and revealed Gibson's mischaracterization. "Pray for our military men and women," she had said, "who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God." Gibson had made it sound as if Palin were claiming to know God's will, rather than praying that U.S. actions might be in accord with God's will and in a cause worthy of God's blessing.

    No doubt the mere fact of Palin's asking for any kind of blessing on our troops and our national leaders at some backwoods Alaska church was sufficiently distracting to the scripters of Gibson's questions that they didn't look closely at the wording. God knows (so to speak) what they believe at a place like that! Why, their kids probably even enlist in the Army to fight our enemies.

    Speaking of enemies: Within hours of the ABC interview, the Washington Post distorted straightforward remarks made by Palin that same day to U.S. soldiers deploying to Iraq. She praised them for going over to help "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." Palin clearly meant that our soldiers would be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq--a group connected to the al Qaeda central command responsible for 9/11. The Post claimed to believe that Palin was asserting a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11--as if she thought soldiers now heading to Iraq were going to fight Saddam's regime--and triumphantly noted that even the Bush administration no longer asserted such a connection (it never did, in fact).

    Palin's remarks should have been unexceptional: We've been fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq for several years now. But the media are desperate to try to make her look foolish. In the same interview, she praised Ronald Reagan for having won the Cold War. What a gaffe, some media watchdogs barked. The Soviet Union didn't collapse until three years after Reagan left office! Gotcha!

    Not a chance. Sarah Palin is quickly proving to be more than a match for the mad, mad media. Having foolishly started a war with her that they can't win, the liberal media would be well advised, for once, to implement their own favorite war-fighting strategy: cut and run.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/558zdiqa.asp?ZoomFont=YES
  2. Maikeru-sama

    Maikeru-sama Mick Green 58

    14,547 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Kind of interesting.

    Most of the complaining I have seen in the last week or so is "Oh the media is so biased", "All they do is pick on Bush or Palin" :rolleyes: .

    Both sides whine, but it is always funny to see one side accusing the other of doing it exclusively.
  3. peplaw06

    peplaw06 That Guy

    13,686 Messages
    410 Likes Received
    This article hits the nail on the head.

    And Mick... the media has been biased. I'm not saying that "all they do is pick on Bush or Palin," but there's no doubt the media has a dog in this fight. And this election they seem to be more obvious in their tactics. I think they're turning more people off to them than they are to the candidates.
  4. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,868 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    All you had to do was watch "The View" yesterday for a primer in media bias. Sweet and light with Obama, vicious and inquisitorial with McCain. Disgraceful. McCain should have walked off the show.
  5. Maikeru-sama

    Maikeru-sama Mick Green 58

    14,547 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Yep, just like Talk Radio has been biased.

    One of my favorite radio stations, 1160 The Voice of Texans is a pretty good radio broadcast, but they are biased as hell.

    Everybody has an agenda, it is just annoying seeing one side or the other accusing the other of doing it.
  6. jrumann59

    jrumann59 Well-Known Member

    4,293 Messages
    435 Likes Received

    Whether you believe it or not TV and print media has the largest base of subscribers and viewers radio is the only real haven for conservatives and the dems even want to change that with the fairness doctrine.
  7. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Not biased,its market guided.
    Why did Air America fail?..can't get more "biased" than that.
    Because people don't want to hear liberal radio.
    Now the liberals want to even things out using the fairness doctrine,a direct hit to the first amendment.
    Liberalism is a mental disorder,plain and simple.
    What do Glenn Beck,Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity,Michael Savage have in common?
    Why are their radio shows successful?
  8. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I heard that on radio.
    Disgraceful.Shame on Rod Stewart,errrrr,Barb Walters.
  9. Viper

    Viper Active Member

    2,190 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I do think there is a huge difference between NBC News and talk radio. One is suppose to be an unbias news source, they even claim they are unbias. The other is an opinion forum, they are very biased, they are suppose to be.
  10. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,279 Messages
    2,468 Likes Received
    I'm so pathetic. I just now realized that Mad Libs is a pun.

Share This Page