Is the media completely pro-Obama? Yes it is!

I have been watching all of the different channels(with the help of my DVR) and their coverage of the election. I have come to a conclusion: the media IS unethically and overwhelmingly pro-Obama! Why do I say unethically? I do so because I do not care if you are pro-Obama or pro-McCain but when you are posing as a legitimate unbiased news outlet but you are not, you are lying and that is unethical! If you want to be pro-Obama or pro-McCain then come out and say it. Do not hide behind your lies about unbiased news reporting. The second part of my conclusion is: CNN is left of center by quite a bit, MSNBC is so left of center it is bordering on lunacy, and Fox News is fair and balanced just like they say they are.

What is that? Is every liberal yelling at their computer right now that I am obviously a conservative and I am drinking the Fox News kool-aid? If so you would be completely wrong because like I said I have watched all of the news outlets and even the main networks for their coverage before coming to these conclusions. I had never watched Fox News before this election but I had always heard it was an unfair right-wing slanted channel. I had heard that basically Fox News was far right, MSNBC was far left, and CNN was in the middle and fair. Again...that was before I watched them all. I will also go as far as to guaranty that no one who thinks Fox News is what people say it is has ever actually watched the channel at all, much less enough to form that opinion! Fox News gives equal time. If they have a discussion there is normally always a person from the left and a person from the right and the anchor tries to stay off one side or the other. On the other hand, it is the honesty of the other anchors or hosts of shows on Fox News, that are biased and pulling for one side, that I respect more than CNN. At least the people on Fox News who openly lean right, or have even jumped into the deep end of the right, admit who they are and what they are. Likewise, MSNBC anchors do not try to hide the fact that they have Obama sheets on their bed and that they wear Obama pajamas...for that I at least have some respect for them. But CNN anchors try to hide their allegiances and they do a horrible job of it! The only people I respect on CNN are John King and Lou Dobbs.

Quick personal story:
-I was just watching a discussion about the election on CNN where Anderson Cooper was the anchor and the people discussing the topic were Al Sharpton, Roland Martin, and David Gergen. That is your idea of a discussion group, CNN? Can we at least have a somewhat conservative voice in this pro-Obama love fest? Anderson Cooper far-left, Roland Martin far-left, Al Sharpton ultra-left, and David Gergen a left leaning moderate?!?!? Nice job! That is like hiding an elephant in an open field! (where the elephant is the hard on that CNN has for Barack Obama!)
-One more example as proof that Anderson Cooper has Barack Obama's picture on the front of his tightie-whities: He opened his show tonight by saying, "Four days to the election. We are on the cusp of history and it is very exciting!". The cusp of history, Anderson? No, it is only history if Obama wins. Sounds like you think this race is over and you have let your love of Obama slip out yet again!

Are you liberals still calling me a conservative hack? Ok, I guess I should offer some proof to my assertions...I wish someone would do a study on the media in this election cycle...oh, wait, someone did do that! The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism did!

• The study found that MSNBC aired stories on McCain that were negative 73% of the time. MSNBC only aired negative stories about Obama 14% of the time.
• The study found that CNN aired stories on McCain that were negative 57% of the time. CNN only aired negative stories about Obama 29% of the time.
• The study found that Fox News aired stories on McCain that were negative 40% of the time. Fox News aired negative stories about Obama 40% of the time.

Anymore questions?

"Bleeding heart liberals" or hateful hypocrites?

I have been shocked at how nasty, vindictive, and childish democrats have been in this election. No group of people can be accused of all thinking alike but from what I have seen there is a nastiness running through the Democratic party. Story after story during this election tells about how democrats attack anyone who questions them or speaks out against them or their savior Barack Obama. You are not allowed to question him or you get attacked. If you question him anyway, you are a racist! This behavior is unbelievable to me when it is coming from the party that is suppose to be so pro-free speech, so accepting of other peoples' views. Here are a few examples of vindictiveness and pettiness from the left:

• Joe "the Plumber", who I for one am tired of hearing about, was immediately attacked on air by democratic pundits but even worse democratic government officials in his home state of Ohio investigated him and looked into his confidential records then leaked them to the press!

• Obama and Biden smeared and cut off a news organization from their campaign because one of their reporters dared to ask Biden tough questions. Even if they thought these questions were wrong or off base...you answer them then move on. That is the job of the press...ASKING QUESTIONS! This incident shows Obama and Biden have very thin skin and are vindictive! All she did was ask very tough questions, even if they were partisan, THEY WERE QUESTIONS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ACTUALLY WANTED ASKED!

• Now Obama has kicked three newspaper reporters off his plane! These three reporters just happen to work for papers who endorsed McCain! That is ridiculous! These reporters were reporters not columnist not op end writers! This gives the impression that Obama is petty, thin skinned, and vindictive! This is a HORRIBLE idea this close to the election...this action just makes Obama and his campaign look vindictive and people do not like vindictive people especially in government. I guaranty you that Obama lost a few votes from this incident alone!

In addition to the attacks of the media and democratic pundits there is an amazing amount of hate on the Internet. And, yes, I know there are right-wing loons and hate filled people that are anti-Obama but there is no doubt that they are out numbered this year by hate filled left wingers! The Democrats have always said they were the party for the people. They were the party for the little man. They loved everyone and everything and wanted to make the world a better place. This election has proven otherwise. There is a large population of the Democratic Party that are hateful, childish, and down right ignorant! Hateful websites posting insane ramblings, and yes they are completely insane ramblings about the man and 9/11 conspiracies, out number conservative, or even right wing hate websites, 3 to 1. Do not believe me? Look for yourself! You will find a lot more hate from the left then you will the right...I guaranty it!

After taking all of the hate on the Internet and adding it into the fact that Republicans are actually PROVEN to be more generous and charitable people...I saw that this whole persona of the Democratic party is a crock of shit! They hate just as much as people on the right! They are as vengeful as anything that comes from the right. They are as petty as anyone from the right. All of this makes the Democrats, overall but not every one of them, even bigger frauds because they claim to be something they are not!

Now that I am done bashing a large portion of the Democratic party and calling them out for being hateful, vindictive, and childish...I would like to say that both sides have loons and it is sad. It is one thing to disagree, even passionately disagree, with someones views or beliefs but it does not give you the right to spread hate or be a childish troll! I feel sorry for every person who said things like, "I hope Cheney dies!", or "George Bush is a war criminal", or "lynch Obama", or "I hope McCain's cancer comes back!", or any of the other thousands of hateful and insane things that have been said on the Internet. For you to be that caught up in politics, and that hateful, shows a very big problem in your life. No matter who wins this election, he will be my president. And, here is the thing, he will be your president too! No, do not say that he will not be "your" president...because he will be! If we go by that thinking...if you do not like your boss...is he not your boss? NOPE, he is still your boss! What will make your place of work, the lives of your co-workers, and your life easier(not to mention your future brighter)? That is right! Accepting and working with the people around you regardless of your differences because we are all Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats and we are all human beings before that!

Part IV: Barack Obama wins popular vote. McCain wins electoral college and Presidency.

The race is closing and there are some trends that spell doom for Barack Obama! In the last few weeks there has been a 20 point closing of the gap, with voters 18-30 years old, in favor of McCain. There has been a 16 point closing of the gap, with voters 30-45 years old, in favor of McCain. There has been no change with voters 45-65 years old and among voters 65+ years old, Obama has moved ahead by 11 points. What does all this mean?

• The changes with voters 18-30 and 30-45 show that John McCain's attacks on Obama as a tax and spend liberal are working. People from their mid-20s to their mid-40s are historically more concerned about someone raising their taxes.
• The lack of change with voters 45-65 shows they might just have made up their minds.
• The change in favor of Obama with voters 65+ show that Obama's attacks on McCain, which link him to President Bush's Social Security Reform, are working.

What do all these things mean when put together?

They show that the race is tightening and that a number of people are becoming wary of Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's many gaffes and unpopular statements of the last month. Hardworking Americans do not like to hear, "Spread the wealth". People do not like to hear, "Paying taxes is patriotic". People are also starting to wonder why a year ago Obama said rich was someone making more than $1 million a year, then a few months ago said rich was $250k, then Biden said it was $150k, and now Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a supporter of Obama, says it is $120k? Even if those changes are not really changes in policy and/or are taken out of context and/or anything else that Obama's campaign wants to use to defend them...it does not matter! Perception is reality and you can not erase those statements from this campaign. They are there and no amount of explaining will make them go away and people will decide on their own what they mean.

How do these changes support my contention that Obama will win the popular vote but McCain will win the electoral college and the Presidency?

These changes back up my prediction by showing that Obama is vulnerable. My assertion that people will be scared away from Obama the closer they get to actually having to vote for him, also has weight. Lastly, I actually take the 11 point swing towards Obama, with voters 65+, as a positive for McCain. McCain will not do it, for his own reasons, but a group called GOPTrust.com is going to saturate all the swing states with an ad about Reverend Wright. This ad will have the most effect on voters 65+, they are more likely to be patriotic and should be more sensitive to anti-American sentiments and racial issues, thus negating the only positive trend that Obama has in the closing weeks of this election.

Part III: Barack Obama wins popular vote. McCain wins electoral college and Presidency.

I have been saying for weeks that Obama would win the popular vote by the largest amount by any candidate that did not win the election. Why is this? People are focusing on the national poll...that poll does not matter. That poll shows the popular vote and the popular vote does not decide the Presidency. One must look at the state polls to find out who will be President.

In Part I and Part II of this post I stated that the polls are wrong by a large percentage this year because of the Bradley Effect(there will be a Bradley Effect in these swing states), the polls are weighted heavily Democratic(because these poll takers are guessing how new voter registration will effect the election), military members are polling at 3 to 1 for McCain(and they are not included in national or state polls), and the last effect will just be straight racism. I add these factors together and I come up with my own, Wookie Effect. This effect predicts that Obama is polling 8% too high(2% Bradley Effect, 2% racism, 0.05% military vote, 3.95% poll weighting).

Obama has these states in the bag:
California(55)
Oregon(7)
Washington(11)
Minnesota(10)
Wisconsin(10)
Illinois(21)
Michigan(17)
New York(31)
Maine(4)(not winner take all)
Vermont(3)
Massachusetts(12)
Rhode Island(4)
Connecticut(7)
New Jersey(15)
Delaware(3)
Maryland(10)
District of Columbia(3)
Hawaii(4)
Obama has 227 electoral votes if he carries all these "solid" blue states.

McCain has these states in the bag:
Idaho(4)
Utah(5)
Arizona(10)
Wyoming(3)
South Dakota(3)
Nebraska(5)(not winner take all)
Kansas(6)
Oklahoma(7)
Texas(34)
Arkansas(6)
Louisiana(9)
Mississippi(6)
Alabama(9)
Tennessee(11)
Kentucky(8)
South Carolina(8)
Alaska(3)
McCain has 137 electoral votes if he carries all these "solid" red states.

These are the so called swing states:
Nevada(5) Obama +1.5 adjusted McCain +6.5
Montana(3) McCain +5.6
Colorado(9) Obama +5.4 adjusted McCain +2.6
New Mexico(5) Obama +8.4 adjusted Obama +0.4
North Dakota(3) Obama +2 adjusted McCain +6
Missouri(11) Obama +2.7 adjusted McCain +5.3
Indiana(11) McCain +3.8
Ohio(20) Obama +2.8 adjusted McCain +5.2
West Virginia(5) McCain +5.6
Virginia(13) Obama +8 adjusted EVEN
North Carolina(15) Obama +1.5 adjusted McCain +6.5
Georgia(15) McCain +6.8
Florida(27) Obama +2 adjusted McCain +6
New Hampshire(4) Obama +9.4 adjusted Obama +1.4
Pennsylvania(21) Obama +11 adjusted Obama +3
Iowa(7) Obama +11.8 adjusted Obama +3.8
There are 174 electoral votes up for grab in these "swing" states.

After adjusting the totals from the polls(270 to be elected):
Obama 259 electoral votes
McCain 261 electoral votes
Too close to call Virginia(13) and New Mexico(5)


So, by my calculations the person who wins Virginia wins this election. After I adjust the polls, Virginia is even with Obama 48.8% McCain 48.8%. Virginia is the key boys! Winner take all!

Why are Republicans better than Democrats at the "political game"?

First before I post this...I know 9/11 is a politics-free zone but something happened yesterday that needs discussion.

My contention has always been that Republicans are better than Democrats at running a presidential campaign. It seems like every four years that Democrats come up with a candidate that excites their base and looks like a real contender and most of the time they mess it up. This year the Democrats had a clear path to the White House. People were so upset and ready for change that either Obama or Hillary Clinton should have rolled through the season uncontested....but it did not happen.

The DNC's past failures are what made something standout to me yesterday. Obama and McCain visited ground zero yesterday. I immediately noticed that Cindy McCain was there but Michele Obama was not. I did not think much of it because of the importance of the day and because, frankly, I didn't care. Michele Obama not being there is no great offense or a great mistake for her or her husband. What it is, is a lack of understanding by the DNC of the political game. I find it hard to believe that none of Obama's advisers saw a problem with Michele not being at ground zero.

Michele Obama's absence was not a major blunder but it was a mistake for a woman who has been repeatedly accused of not being patriotic. She was hammered for saying, "For the first time I am proud of my country." and she was harassed for not wearing a flag pin. So, why oh why, would anyone in the DNC not see that Cindy McCain being at ground zero and Michele Obama not being there would be more fuel for the fire? She could have skipped the appearance at ground zero under any other circumstances and in any other campaign....but not this one.

The press didn't make a big deal of it. The RNC isn't making a big deal out of it. Heck, even Fox News isn't making a big deal of it. But I guaranty you that people, who were already questioning her, now have another piece of evidence to back up their opinion that she isn't patriotic and does not love her country. The accusation is unfair and most likely untrue but when has fairness and truth ever mattered in a presidential election?!?

Lipstick

Obama called Palin a pig!!! At least that is what people would have you think.

In my opinion, Obama did not mean to directly call Palin a pig! His comments were about Bush policies versus McCain policies!

This does raise a funny comparison though. Democrats are appalled that Obama is being taken out of context. They cry, "That isn't what he meant!". But, wait, I remember a huge number of Obama supporters talking about how McCain said he would be willing to wage a 100 year war in Iraq? That was a lie and a distortion. What McCain said was that he would be willing to have a "military presence" in Iraq for 100 years. "Presence" as in the "presence" we have had in Germany and Japan since World War II. The presence we have in the Philippines, Cuba, and South Korea. To distort what McCain said to use it against him is the exact same thing that is being done now, to Obama, with the lipstick comment. I find it laughable how one side cries foul when their own tactics are used against them!

Palin speech: What wasn't there

I was impressed by Obama and his speech at the DNC but I was blown away by Palin's speech last night. The question I have is: what was not there in her speech? I found it interesting that there was no pro-life statement in her speech. Strategy? Yes. After looking at her experience and hearing her speak it is obvious, to me at least, that she is qualified for the job BUT she is still an obvious tool being used by the Republican party. She is being used to court the base but she is also being used to court disenfranchised Hillary voters.

It was smart of her and the Republican party for her not to make a definitive pro-life statement in her first big moment. I think the Republicans know that she could have turned off a large portion of pro-choice women with a definitive statement. What she did do is hint at the subject with a "wink, wink" to the base but no statement that the Democrats could run with. She did so by introducing her new baby with downs syndrome as, "And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed are littlest one into the world. A perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig". That statement is an obvious pro-life statement and falls in line with the Republican stance that all life is precious from the minute of conception. It says to people that they could have terminated the pregnancy when they found out their baby had downs syndrome but they didn't. She managed to make a pro-life point without taking a definitive pro-life stance in her first and most important major address.

Question: Is it okay for Palin to use her son Trig in a speech and in the politics of "choice" if it is not okay for Democrats to involve her family? Her speech

Then don't pick a fight!!!

The Democrats and their spin doctors are up in arms about Sarah Palin's speech last night. They say she was "shrill"(that sounds sexist to me) and nasty. Democrats can't believe she attacked and belittled community organizers and that it is "politics as usual" in the Republican party.

HOLD ON A SECOND!!! I am trying to be fair to both sides but there is something very wrong about this situation. I have watched every second of political coverage I could over the last two weeks and someone here is hitting below the belt and then whining when they get a retort. Democrats have roasted this woman and HER FAMILY every second since she was named the Vice-Presidential Nominee. There have been vicious false rumors started on left-leaning blogs and outright tabloid journalism from the mainstream media. Who is really being nasty here? They attacked her children. At least she attacked the other candidate.

I would hope that we could have politics without attacks but what Democrats did to Sarah Palin and what she did to Obama last night are two very different things. She questioned his experience. A person's experience is on the table when that person is running for President of the United States. They attacked her family. A person's family is never on the table! So, it is funny to me that Democrats are whining today because she took them to task on a legitimate point of discussion after they have assaulted her on an illegitimate one.

This blog is dedicated to "wiping off the mud" that is being slung and looking at the facts. My hope is for politics that are fair and clean but I have to interject when one party goes as low as a party can go and then whines when the target of their attacks fights back, not with family attacks or nasty mud slinging, but with serious questions on a legitimate topic. The Democrats want their cake and to eat it too. Don't be negative, petty, and nasty then run to momma whining when you get your nose bloodied.

Having said that, I want to say one thing about the spin doctors I have been watching last night and this morning on this subject. They say Palin and the Republicans made a huge mistake attacking community organizers and that community organizers are going to rise up against them after being belittled. COME ON!?! REALLY?!? That's the basket they are going to put their eggs in? REALLY?!?!? Again...I don't like negative politics and nasty attacks but I think this is a major stretch. Palin did not attack community organizers! She attacked Obama for using his experience as a community organizer to say he is ready to be the most powerful man in the world. There is a big difference. It does not mean I have anything against fast food workers if I question a person for using that as a bullet point on their resume to be the CEO of a company.