Thursday, July 22, 2010

Journolist and other news of the Day

Journalist and Palin

Journalist was a political forum for left wing journalist. It is now shut down, but we are finding out more and more about it and as we do it becomes more apparent that rather than simply a forum where journalist could share ideas, leads, etc. it acted as a if it were part of the Obama campaign staff.

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.
Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel
take: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a
woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people
– people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks
debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote. . . .

Time’s Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community,” he wrote. And indeed Klein’s article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters.

More Bad News if your are a Incumbent and it's even worse if you are an incumbent and in control

Underscoring Congress' image problem, half of Americans now say they
have "very little" or no confidence in Congress,
up from 38% in 2009 --
and the highest for any institution since Gallup first asked this
question in 1973.
Previous near-50% readings include 48% found for the
presidency in 2008, and 49% for the criminal justice system in 1994.

So this Democrat congress has less confidence in it than the Bush administration did as it left office.

Fortunately for Obama there are no Mulligans in elections

The Democrat strategy of trying to "blame Bush" won't work for a number of reasons, but the biggests reason is that the people think Obama should have done a better job. Having spent in less than two years $3 trillion more than he had, Americans are rethinking the whole "hope and change" thing.

Democrats will be gulping this morning at the Quinnipiac Poll’s latest
results. For the first time in the survey’s history, Americans believe by a 48%
to 40% margin that President Obama doesn’t deserve re-election.
Almost as stinging, a plurality believe the country would have been better off if John McCain had beaten Mr. Obama in 2008.

With all the noise about Shirley Sherrod, you might not have seen this. It appears race and gender were factors used by the government in deciding which dealerships to shut down when they took over GM and Chrysler.

Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry
bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and
Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by
Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky

It appears post racial as practiced by the Obama Administration means discriminating against a different racial and gender groups.

No comments:

Post a Comment