non-stick Blagojevich

That title almost rhymes.

Does anyone wonder why they keep doing it? The news reports on Blagojevich's attempts to sell off Obama's senate seat continue to mis-label him as having no party affiliation. Oh but yes... leaving out that information is a mis-label, because if it's a republican doing bad things, the "R" is ever-present. We know that Blagojevich is a democrat simply by observing the lack of the party affiliation tag, and the media knows we know because they have played this little game for years. We've known for years, they know we know, and yet they keep doing it.

Are they fooling anybody? Well, probably somebody, some of the time. That however, is not the reason they leave out the "D" next to Blagojevich's name.

They leave it out, because of basic marketing principles. Successful marketing is a series of little hits. Not the one big superbowl commercial, it is seeing the product name and placements over time. Giving up on true reporting, the news media markets a product we call the democratic party. Even if we see there is no "D", and we know the "R" is always there, we also see the "R". The mind will store information associating the R to bad people, but the "D" will be less besmirched. Because we do not SEE the D. Even if we know all this, our minds are being conditioned over time to associate the R with bad, but not the D. It works too, just watch any poll on the subject.

Don't think they do that on purpose. They can't be that conniving. calculating? Then you need to answer for yourself, why do they leave off the "D". Every time, a new scandal breaks, why not identify when they know we know the lack of a label means democrat. Why keep doing it year after year?

They do it because it works.

The Campaign for 2012

If stories are true we are about to get Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense. I think Clinton's creds for being Secretary of State is that she has been a senator a few months longer than Obama. I'm not sure I get it really, from her point of view, isn't she better off as a Senator. I mean aside from the slightly better health plan, she has an agenda of her own that she wants to get back to. Right? Doesn't she? Being Secretary of State means you get to do a lot, as long as it is what the President tells you to do. Clinton is not just trading in a Senate seat, she's trading in a lifetime appointment to the senate. As long as she wants it, New Yorkers aren't giving it to anyone else. What is in it for her... and for Obama?

That's the other thing, Obama had won this one. Throwing a bone to Clinton supporters is one thing, just to make peace. This is adopting the dog. Well, that's the metaphor. So Hillary is not here for her expertise. If Obama wanted that he would keep Condi Rice. She 's the real deal when it comes to expertise. Like Kissinger, except maybe much more popular. Is Hillary an "enemy" to keep closer? I think they qualify as two comrades who simply wanted the exact same job at the same time. There may be animosity between the "camps", but not between the two individuals. They are both radical leftists who do a good job of acting centrist. Why Hillary. Why now, and by the way, if now, then why not last summer?

I think he wants to get his approval rating as high as it can go. That's the only reason for her being there. See, if virtually all democrats support either her or him, then if they are both working in the same administration, almost all dems will vote yes... fantastic job Mr President. In fact, he wraps up a chunk of the independent vote as well. Republicans... well, you really can't please all the people. However Gates will help a lot both with republicans and independents who see him as the catalyst to changing our fortunes in Iraq. He could, by the way, hint hint, be the most popular republican around these days.

So lets say in bad times your poll numbers are about 60% approval, and in good they are 85%. That's pretty good. Easily good enough to get re-elected. That's all there is to it. Stuffing the ballot box so the media will report month after month what great poll numbers he has, even if the editors & reporters have grown disallusioned with his decisions.

The future Mr. President has realized something I don't he think had figured out when he picked Crazy Joe Biden as his running mate last summer. The real 2012 campaign has already started, and the approval ratings are the thing. He is worried about the same thing I am, that the media made him president and they will elect the next president too. Good approval ratings make that a lot harder to do. Iraq until 2011? Baby steps in Universal Health Care? Four more years of Bush after all? Maybe those tax increases on the wealthy (ie- people with jobs) will not be so big after all. Under cover of the monthly Approval Ratings bonanza of Obama & Clinton & Gates supporters, this new president might just take that honeymoon through to 2012.

Obama Goes Nuts for Acorn

So the Obama campaign has evidently given almost one million dollars to ACORN. Not directly of course. The modus operandi of democrats has been to set up multiple organizations, for moving money around. Not unlike the dummy corporations one would see in a money laundering scheme. Money goes from the donor, to some multiple other organizations, but eventually winds up at the organization to which the donation is realy being made, in this case ACORN.

This is the same ACORN that congressional democrats earlier this year funneled 1/2 Billion dollars to through legislative fiat, and tried to funnel a second 1/2 Billion a few weeks ago in the so-called bail-out bill before House republicans decided they were having none of it. Later versions of the bail-out bill scrapped the half billion for ACORN.

This is the same ACORN that faces about a dozen federal indictments for voter fraud all over the country. These people have been paying suragotes a lot of money to invent fictitious voters and get them registered by walking into voter registration with bags full of registration forms... and in many cases, Ohio being a prime example, the fictitious voters immediately cast REAL votes, as bags of filled out absentee voter ballot forms are turned in at the same time. Tens of thousands of fictitious votes. Maybe hundreds of thousands. Enough to change the landscape of the US Congress, and maybe the presidency, in our upcoming election.

In the last few weeks, Obama has donated $800,000, through the network of democratic party non-profits, to ACORN. For "getting the vote out". The main stream media does not consider this news worthy... and there will be no questions concerning his support for ACORN. There were none at the debate, and none forthcoming over the next 3 1/2 weeks. If Obama says he doesn't condone voter fraud, and then immediately writes a check for $800,000 to the biggest perpetrator of voter fraud in US history, isn't that news worthy?

Paul Krugman wins 2008 Nobel for Bush-Bashing

You said it yourself Paul, there were other economists playing important roles in the studies you were involved with 30 years ago. This was a solo prize awarded to one and only one economist. Think the Nobel committee knew you were not alone in this work? Think they cared?

Dude... you're an economist. Remember math? 2 + 2 = 4. Except maybe at the New York Times, yeah I know. Okay, but you know that the election is three weeks away, the Nobel Committee has expended a lot of prizes over the last eight years in their effort to admonish those who might support Bush, and to generally speak to the world of their royal displeasure with our president and republicans in general.

They picked you first Paul, and then justified the prize after confirming that you did something, anything reasonably intellectual 30 years ago. But if the prize were really for economics, Paul, there would have been a few more names included. Deep down inside, I think you know.

NBC goes Orwell on us

I still hear the talking heads proclaim that Saturday Night Live is even handed. Oh yes they make fun of republicans and democrats. During this election campaign they had seemed more even handed than ever. Someone however, has put their foot down. SNL went too far, criticized the left too much, and now some writers are learning first hand how much freedom of speech they really have.

I kept clicking on this one skit, wanting to see the CSPAN-Bailout skit SNL did recently. It turns out the skit blamed Barney Frank, in part, for today's economic crises. The line used is "and thank you congressman frank as well as many republicans for helping block congressional oversight of our corrupt activities". The line is spoken by Herbert Sandler (protrayed by Darrell Hammond), one of those who has been greatly enriched by the subprime lending that took place.

Well it turns out.... I will not be able to see the original skit on any NBC websites or on HULA. The skit has been pulled, CENSORED, and then replaced. That's right.... criticism of Barney Frank has been edited, removed from the skit. The censored portion is visible now only on youtube. The censored portion, aka the "Missing 18 Seconds", also picks on Herb Sandler, not just a billionaire but like George Soros he gives massive amonts of money to democratic party 527's, including 2.4 million to moveon.org in the last election cycle.

Frank and Sandler are still portrayed in the post-censored video, but the close friendship between the Sandlers and Nancy Pelosi and the thanks for Frank's running interference for them in congress has been conspiciously removed.

The message to SNL's writers and actors: Barney Frank is off limits, as are giant democratic party donors. They do beat up George Soros, but he extremely high profile, we have heard it all and more, and The Party is in no danger of ever loosing his support. Most of us had never heard of the Sandler's until this skit.

The media narrative is driving Obama's poll results. His lead nationwide currently sits at 52%. The Narrative says this economic mess is due to Bush, cronies, lack of regulation, greed, and of course, John McCain. Never mind that Bush and McCain both actually tried to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac earlier in this decade, and that Barney Frank and the democrats and the media portrayed that oversight as an attack on the poor and the middle class. The campaign for president has been distilled into a simple process of Obama saying simple things, not taking chances, and the presidency is his, crowned by the main stream media.

An SNL skit that differs from that view, and in this case goes out 180 degrees from the official narrative, could loosen that hammerlock on 50+% that Obama now holds. That's all it would take... any inference that the narrative people are being told is not complete. Remember, these skits are getting hammered themselves, in a good way. Over 10 million hits for a Sarah Palin skit in just a few days. SNL is getting big attention from a lot of people, but it's the young voter that the NBC-Obama campaign frets about the most. Those are the voters most susceptible to manipulation. So goofy spoofs are okay, but don't get in the way of big democratic donors, or Barney Frank, or most of all The Narrative. That narrative has given Obama the lead, and keeping the blame pointed squarely at republicans will guarantee victory.

Someone Wake Biden in Time for the Debate

This is one of the main ways the left creates mythology. The headline is not true. The story reveals that Biden only left the debate prep temporarily to cast a vote in the senate. But the headline says that Biden is so underwhelmed by Sarah Palin, that he doesn't need to prepare. A cause for much mirth among the left, who will take the headline, and repeat it, and treat it as fact. A few jokes from Letterman or Leno, and the headline will be ingrained within the popular culture.

By itself, this is a very minor attack. It's msn after all, as in msnbc. But as I was taught long ago, marketing is a series of hits. Some big, most are small. A little advertisement like this disguised as news or humor that calls Sarah Palin "The Dummy", and over time mythology becomes unquestionable fact. With Bush it was started with a "D" he made in college. Never mind that Gore and that other guy made worse grades than Bush, those grades were covered up and they were always portrayed as intellects.

The good news is the more they trash, the fewer americans are fooled by the same old media tricks. But suckers are born every minute, and they get to vote. Some times more than once.

Charlie Gibson Gives Birth to Human Child During Palin Interview

Well, he was apparently giving birth, though no confirmation yet on the species. Has there ever been a man so clenched while giving an interview? He looked like he was afraid Palin would leap at him, skin him and start grilling Chuck Burgers.

Charlie's interview turns on the use of the phrase "Bush Doctrine." The news story from this hasn't gone away, but started with Palin seemingly not being familiar with Bush Doctrine. Suddenly he media says she didn't know that Bush Doctrine was "preemptively attacking countries that posed a threat to US security." That's how Gibson explained it and how others in the media have explained it since then.

Really? So that's Bush Doctrine? The left considers pre-emptive strike to be one of the 7 deadly sins. Thou Shalt Not. So no surprise that Gibson turned pop-quiz moderator tried to foist that opinion on Palin. The media continues to ask her about Bush Doctrine to remind viewers that she "didn't know". Isn't the real problem that the media has re-invented Bush Doctrine, and now defines it as whatever they don't like about Bush at the moment?

Some fact checking: I can think of two doctrines. We learn about Monroe Doctrine in school, but the fact is the phrase "The Monroe Doctrine" didn't come into use until 13 years after that president created the policy. In more modern times, Reagan and Bush both had doctrines. The media coins the phrase when they hate the president so much that they attach the doctrine moniker to some aggressive stance. Reagan Doctrine was, in part, about aiding anti-communist movements who were resisting the USSR. Central America and Afghanistan come to mind. It was about advancing technology to force the USSR to compete against america's super-charged economy. The left hated that. Papa Bush wasn't president long enough to get a doctrine named after him, but we can bet that if McCain wins, and is president for 8 years, hmmmmm, well he will have a doctrine named after him.

Bush Doctrine in reality is much more than Charlie Gibson's pretense. What about “unilateral action is okay when defending the US“. What happened to “if you’re not with us, you are against us”. These have been Bush Doctrine in the past. The fact is Palin could have answered the question better, but Charlie’s question was far more vague than he and the rest of he main stream media have been making out. Vague questions deserve vague answers.

In a presidential campaign, the media always casts one of the republicans as The Dummy. Never one of their candidates of course, always a republican. They need it so SNL and the Daily Show and armies of comedians can use the same jokes year after year. Reagan was cast as The Dummy and “crazy nuclear war starter“, Quail got it next, then they skipped the 96 campaign because Dole never had a chance, then Bush in 2000.

Gibson‘s interview question gives the official media “The Dummy” title to Palin, with media follow-up already working to build on that. The creation of the newest media mythology begins.

Chris Matthews Forced to Cover Topics Against His Will

See last week Chris took the middle of his show Hardball and gave a soliloquy on how terrible it was that the media was spending all it's time talking about lipstick, when they should be talking about "issues". He had just spent the first half hour teaming up with another Democrat to try to get Republican talking heads to admit that John McCain really believed that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig.

There is at least one online ad that makes the claim, and in fact the ad pretty much implies Obama called her a pig. The ad has appeared over and over on TV, being played for free by shows like Hardball. But Mathews wants to read their lips.... hear them admit that McCain really believes this. Both Republicans he dragged into the arena talked around the question, refusing to actually speak for McCain... and that really set off Matthews., he's yelling at them to confess!

So after that ordeal and then his denouncement of the coverage of lipstick, he brings on friends so they can spend the last half hour talking about lipstick, and whining... "when are we ever going to get to talk about the issues."

He is oblivious to his own irony.... it's his show! He can talk about anything he wants, but he cannot get off lipstick! He MUST talk about lipstick. It's not his decision you see, it's all the republicans' fault for making the accusation. Now he has no choice, and they have poisoned the conversation. I admit I was just watching because I was hoping to glimpse some of the msnbc Lord of the Fly's action Jon Stewart has covered. No such luck, but what I caught was equally bizaar. One entire hour about lipstick from a guy who decries the media talking about lipstick.

Oh by the way.... there is no doubt that the audience knew what Obama meant... they squealed like... well, you know.

Questioning Julie Roginsky

Julie Roginsky was on cnbc friday to discuss the Sarah Palin VP pick. CNBC called her a "Democratic Strategist". Roginsky insisted that Palin had been a small town mayor until two or three weeks ago. Even after being corrected by another guest she never seemed to acknowledge that Palin has been governor for two years. Later she even repeated her mistake, loudly and proudly. My question to the democrats is.... can I have a job?

As of now I want to be a highly paid democratic strategist. I can fiercely insist on air that 2+2 is 3 and the sky is purple, staring with big blanks in between each attempt to speak over other guests who are trying to correct me. Yes Al Gore invented the internet! 911 was an inside job! Bill Clinton took over a failing economy! Republicans eat children! Palin has only been Alaska's governor for 12 days! Hey this is easy!

Turns out Roginsky may be more disliked by democrats than republicans. Daily Kos took a poll last august where 71% of the respondents said she should be publicly shunned. I'm guessing she said something accurate a year ago, offending the rank and file.

I tried searching for "democratic strategist" on monster.com, but no luck. I guess they have all the help they need.

Debatable Wisdom

Now that we have the teams picked, the republican convention should be a total party. The only mystery will be whether any surprise speakers will be slipped into the mix next week. What always comes after the convention is the media excitement over the debates. When and where will they be held, how many, what's the format, and of course... who gets to moderate?!

So I'm getting out ahead of the narrative, the media will not be asking those questions this time. Obama will not be answering the call. No one thinks he did well against McCain in Saddlebrook, and the line has been that McCain wins a face-to-face, Obama wins the stump.

So Obama will stump. There will be, in the eyes of the media, perfectly plausible reasons given for not debating. Maybe something about "McCain not willing to come to terms", code for no format will be good enough for Obama. Even after Obama said he would debate McCain anyplace, anywhere. They will need a format that somehow gives Obama an edge. Basically, a debate format that involves no debating. It's just a prediction.

I have an alternate suggestion. Lets debate Biden v McCain, and Obama v Palin. Then we can have regular evenly matched contests. Lots more fun than listening to the media act like we don't need real debates this time.

Real Question about Biden

What is the real difference between Biden and Clinton? Obama's supporters were voting for him early this year because he was the anti-Hillary. No votes for the war and pulling out immediately. He was new and she was establishment. So she comes in a very close second to Obama, and he picks Biden who had about 12 votes.
The whole reason we heard he couldn't pick Hillary was she wasn't anti-war enough. They didn't want anyone who had voted for the war. Now he picks one of the most pro-war democrats.
So the real question has to be: if you can run with Biden, why can't you run with Hillary? History is loaded with candidates who ran with the runner-up as a VP candidate. But "why-not-Hillary?" was a topic from a couple months ago. So no one touches it now. Back then everyone knew the answer, but with the Biden pick, that answer is out the door, and Obama isn't being asked to provide a new answer.
Saturday the question should have been resurrected.

McCain's Housing Crises

The boys and girls over at the Daily Show seem to think John McCain doesn't remember where he lives.
This all starts with with a reporter asking McCain how many houses does he own. For some reason McCain's response has been frothed over all day. Why no interest in why the reporter asked the question?
Well any amount of research shows McCain and his wife own property through a trust. That includes condominiums, McCain believed. In fact it's a very good bet that neither the candidate nor his wife knows exactly what, or how much of what, is currently owned.
Answer: they own way more than one house. What is the reporter really after?
Answer: a reponse from McCain to counteract the the charges of elitism that are crushing Obama's poll numbers? To remind people that McCain is wealthy and therefor worse than an elitist?
My real question is this: when the reporter's job is to try to provide sound bites for the Obama strategists, do we have any place other than the Daily Show doing any real reporting?