« Where's the cheese? | Main | Obama's Aunt an Illegal Alien; She Contributed to His Campaign; Lives in Public Housing »

Woman In Chains

When word got around that the Barack Obama campaign had decided to make room on the official plane for some new journalists, from Ebony and Jet, by booting off the reporters from three newspapers who -- by an astonishing coincidence -- had recently endorsed McCain, a thought that had been bouncing around the back of my mind finally jelled: now we're finally seeing the true face of the Obama campaign -- and administration.

The message being sent: you're either with us or you're against us.

Ever since he first announced his candidacy, Obama has enjoyed tremendous support from the press. They've touted him, glorified him, praised him, and covered for him. They've also fought his battles for him, taking on such presumptuous upstarts like "Joe the Plumber" and Stanley Kurtz and anyone else who dares risk embarrassing Obama so he won't have to sully his saintly hands.

And in return, how has this slavish devotion worked out for them?

Ask any woman in a relationship with an abusive man.

Yeah, that sounds harsh. But I think it's not entirely inappropriate.

Barack Obama, both directly and through his surrogates, has been presumptuous, contemptuous, deceptive, demanding, and downright abusive to the press throughout their long relationship. And in return, the press has embodied Sylvia Plath's thought:

Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you.

Here are a few examples:

The infamous "sweetie" incident. Obama was in detroit when a local TV reporter (distaff, of course) asked him about what he would do to help auto workers. Obama dismissed her with a "hold on a second, sweetie. We'll hold a press avail," but never did.

If Obama were pretty much anyone else but a black liberal, he would have been crucified for his objectifying and dismissive behavior. But he got a pass.

Obama plans on charging hefty fees to the press who wants to cover him on election night.

Two television stations gave Joe Biden a bit of a rough time in interviews. Right after that, both were informed that they were now blacklisted with the campaign.

The endless attacks on Fox News hardly need mentioning, so I'll hardly mention them.

And now we have the exile of the reporters from the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the Dallas Morning News from the Obama plane.

My thoughts immediately turned to the time the McCain campaign booted Maureen Dowd off its plane. On the surface, it seems a fair parallel. But then you get the differences:

1) The McCain didn't kick the Times' reporters off, just one opinion columnist with a history for just plain making shit up.

B) That columnist had been thoroughly vile to the candidates.

III) The Times itself has been thoroughly vile to the candidates.

d) The McCain camp was very upfront about what they did and why.

In this case, the Obama campaign weaseled around, saying that they just needed to "make room" for some folks from Ebony and Jet, and the decision on which reporters lost their seats was not based on the editorial endorsements. They didn't spell out what it WAS based on, but it certainly wasn't on the basis of circulation, influence, or journalistic excellence. One would be hard-pressed to find out just what the criteria was, as the only common element was that all three papers had in the very recent past endorsed McCain.

I find myself wondering -- and hoping -- if this could be the beginning of a great awakening of the media to the true nature of their relationship with Obama. It's not a symbiotic one; they exist to serve his agenda, and must not under any circumstances detract from that. For a long time they were able to tell themselves that it was all right to subvert their own goals and purposes and aspirations and dreams "for the greater good," to forfeit their own dignity and responsibilities and integrity because, in the end, it would all be worth it and the world would be a better place and they would, in the end, be honored and exalted and loved for the role their devotion and suffering and self-sacrifice in bringing it all about.

Go to any women's shelter and ask them how well that worked out.

Yes, I'm hoping that this will be the final straw, the last wake-up call the media needs to finally face the reality it has helped shape. But I'm not optimistic.

In their endless self-sacrifices, the media has lost a tremendous amount of its former power and influence. They've chosen a path that has weakened them tremendously, that has cost them so much of what they once held. Newspapers are crumbling. Radio news is failing. Television news is suffering. Magazines are shrinking and consolidating. And the new alternate media (folks like - ahem - me and a lot of others far better and more influential than me) has taken a great deal of what they have let slip away.

So we end up with several possible scenarios:

1) The media decides that it's made too many sacrifices, given up too much, and simply isn't strong enough to try to stand on its own again, so it goes "all in" and submits completely to Obama and all the others that they have willingly surrendered to for all these many years.

2) They rally what little strength they have left and walk away from their abusers and try to put it all behind them, rebuild their lformer livelihoods and vocations, and work like hell to return to what they once had -- and so willingly threw away.

3) They pull a "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"/"burning bed" and finally turn on their oppressors.

4) They suddenly realize just how badly things have gotten for them, but by then, they know the wisdom of Pastor Martin Neimoller:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Yes, the title is a "Tears For Fears" reference. I was inspired, in part, by the latest "literal music video" reworking of "Head Over Heels."


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Woman In Chains:

» Petrified Truth linked with Gimme shelter

Comments (51)

It's now official. ODS has ... (Below threshold)

It's now official. ODS has overcome and overwhelmed Mr. T.

Surely, you are probably the only person in the universe - well one of the few (all of whom reside on the right side of the political hemisphere) who gives a rats ass about stuff like this.

You really ought to go back to fiction writing - you're actually pretty good at the naval stories.

Show me where I'm wrong, yo... (Below threshold)

Show me where I'm wrong, you gibbering idiot.

I see the events. I discern a pattern. I state what I believe, and show examples of what led me to believe that. And your vague, Obama-esque dismissals and denials don't apply one whit to what I wrote.

You should have tossed in a "sweetie" as well.


Jay, I've recently... (Below threshold)
superg Author Profile Page:


I've recently found persuasive those who suggest the media is in the bag for Obama out of self interest. That they're hoping he and the congressional democrats will steer some of the bailout money their way.

Your post raises the thought that Obama really has no incentive to keep the media on anything but the barest of life support. A strong media is the last thing he needs.

I'm imagining the personification of the MSM as that sloth guy from Seven.

I didn't say you were wrong... (Below threshold)

I didn't say you were wrong Mr T. I just said so what. The only folks who have the Obama as a "messiah" complex are you right wingers.

Amazing. We've TWICE posted... (Below threshold)

Amazing. We've TWICE posted the video of the Obama supporter talking about how Obama will pay her mortgage and put gas in her tank, and WE have the "Obamessiah" complex?

JFO really IS Just Fucking Obtuse.


My guess is that the legacy... (Below threshold)

My guess is that the legacy media tank job has a lot more to do with re-establishing the fairness doctrine and putting the conservative blogosphere out of business that bailout money. Every existing entity that is challenged by something new reacts the same way. Remember that when the automobile was invented many localities (at the behest of the horse and buggy folks) tried to nullify the autos advantages by requiring that a man with a lantern preceed the auto. Only fair you know.

By Tim Reid, The Times of L... (Below threshold)

By Tim Reid, The Times of London

Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

JFO, the people that Obama's senior advisors are talking about are not right wingers. Hmmmmm, you and Maureen Dowd have never been seen together.......

The MSM has really compromised themselves with Obama. Chance to cover history: the first black president of the US and it's happening on their watch. What could be more amazing. Yet, if you bleached him, he would have never made it beyond the Iowa caucuses once his less than mediocre political record was known. The LA Times admits to having a tape that would likely prove compromising but can't release it because they want to protect? I have a feeling if Mr. Obama wins the presidency, we will have many deer in the headlights moments - more than with any other president any of us can remember.

Access..It all boils... (Below threshold)

It all boils down to access. The drive-bys will do what needs to be done to have a tiny morsel thrown their way occasionally. We saw that with CNN and Sadam...they were his lapdogs because if they actually reported the news, they would be denied access to Sadam's version of the news. O'Reilly threw softballs when given the coveted interview with Obama..he wants another one in the future. I hold out no hope that the media will actually start doing it's job. That era is past. Thank God for the internet.

I will take what is behind ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I will take what is behind door number 1.

"1) The media decides that it's made too many sacrifices, given up too much, and simply isn't strong enough to try to stand on its own again, so it goes "all in" and submits completely to Obama and all the others that they have willingly surrendered to for all these many years."

It seems that no.1 has alre... (Below threshold)

It seems that no.1 has already taken place. Even Fox, by bending over backwards to be fair,continually glosses over the Obama/Biden gaffes and constant misstatements of facts. Yet, the press gives no quarter for the slightest gaffe of the McCain campaign. Look how the Sunni/Shia misstep was played over and over while 57 states, the Biden FDR gaffe etc are just blog posts. McCain's age is a joke for the late night Tv hosts but Biden's aneurysms are not important. Palin's actually going against her party to accomplish great things is unimportant experience but Obama's saying he is bi-partisan is all the proof required that he will reach across the isle. The whole thing makes me sick.

i always enjoy watching mem... (Below threshold)

i always enjoy watching members of "the media" (bloggers included) talk about how "the media" is in the bag for Obama. I guess they mean all of the media besides 50% of the blogosphere, Drudge (more read than the NY times online) Fox News (the most watched cable network), talk radio (where the right has total primacy), the wall street journal, the washington times, the new york post, the weekly standard, the national review, etc...and these are just the outlets that are overtly partisan.

i know it's your job to discredit the candidate opposed to yours, but it would be great if bloggers brought a little bit of self awareness to the office every day.

The problem with number two... (Below threshold)

The problem with number two is there still aren't any Media Resource Centers for the poor abused ones to hide and lick their wounds while getting counseling on how to put their lives back together.

(Meaning they still haven't figured out the internet yet.)

Or have they?

I've already been seeing an... (Below threshold)

I've already been seeing and talking about the similarities I'm seeing between Obama's meteoric (and unexplainable) rise and that of Adolf Hitler. And now you've cited Niemuller. Let's not forget that Hitler came to power through election by the people in a democracy, and then usurped total control.

We have seen the press totally in the tank, and we have seen people (esp. the have-nots) expecting him to be their messiah. In short, we have seen people completely deluded by Obama (witness JFO as posted here!).

In two days' time, we'll see who wins the election, and whether we'll see Obama win and then move toward becoming "Life President" or whether we'll see McCain win and Obama rise up in revolt, I can't guess.

In 2000, I was alarmed at how far toward overthrowing the democratic process the "democratic" candidate went, and I feared then that we were approaching the "win at any cost" mentality of the Third World. I'm afraid I was right.

Gore's cries of "Do-over!" poisoned many younger people, taking away any respect they had for the election process or democratic rule "by the people". This set them up for the possibility now of revolt against what they've been brainwashed into believing it the right and the good. (Again, witness JFO's "so what?" post here. So what?! So everything that we've shed blood since 1775 to achieve and to retain!)

Good-bye, freedom of the press. Good-bye, liberty. Good-bye, independent thinking. We won't really miss you until you've been gone a day or two.

Given the long history of t... (Below threshold)

Given the long history of the elite media's blatant dishonesty and deceitful coverage of their chosen candidate,I expect no changes. (Remember, the still have Walter Duranty's portrait hanging in the Pulitzer hall at the NYT).

Instead, I think a whole new group of pundits and opinion writers will eventually fill the void.

That's what happened in the late seventies when conservatives had only Buckley to look to for informed writing. Then a plethora of conservative writers came on the scene with the emergence of Reagan.

Your abused woman theme is accurate Jay. The latest to sign up is Peggy Noonan in yesterday's WSJ. She traded in three decades of credibility to become part of the club. Disgusting.

Will the new media members ... (Below threshold)

Will the new media members be sitting in the smelly, unkempt section of the plane with the rest until they prove their devotion?

I don't see the MSM getting... (Below threshold)

I don't see the MSM getting any of their credibility back any time soon. Yeah, they'll wake up and finally realize they've been punked, but Obama's people will dismiss any questioning as mere "racial hate speech". If The Chosen is elected you can bet the stage managing and secrecy will continue.

Rob, bias doesn't bother me... (Below threshold)

Rob, bias doesn't bother me. Not in the least.

It's the absolute refusal to admit it that bothers me.

People forget who it actual... (Below threshold)

People forget who it actually was that declared Obama the messiah, and what he stands for.

Louis Farrakhan Declares Barack Obama The Messiah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha5HEc-vO Js

Great analogy to the abused... (Below threshold)

Great analogy to the abused spouse, Jay Tea.
The saving grace for the U.S. is that the people, more and more every day, have the internet. Blogs like this one, which have articulate, thought provoking articles and open comments sections for diverse opinions (only occasionally banning writers for gross misconduct) keep the news and information available. General circulation newspapers and weekly newsmagazines cannot hope to compete with the up to the minute info on the internet. That, combined with the bias and lack of indepth reporting is dooming the MSM just as the car doomed the horse and buggy (and the buggy whip makers).

What a loadd of shit!... (Below threshold)
Just John:

What a loadd of shit!
Obama removes access from some reporters and suddenly he's the equivalent of qa Nazi wife beater? is this the best you can come up with?

JT has gone over the deep end.

JT:You could have ad... (Below threshold)

You could have added to your list the fact that Obama pays the women on his campaign staff (the inner working group) eighty-three cents on the dollar to what the men in that group make.
Meanwhile, McCain pays the women in his staff about $1.04 for every $1.00 his men make.

i know it's your job ... (Below threshold)

i know it's your job to discredit the candidate opposed to yours, but it would be great if bloggers brought a little bit of self awareness to the office every day.

Let's talk about self awareness.

Drudge, Fox News, conservative talk radio, and The Weekly Standard are all relatively new on the scene. I use the term relative because if you've been a consumer of media for any significant period of time you will know that the aforementioned sources have been influencing the news for not quite one full generation of voters.

However, Newsweek, TIME, TNYT, Wapo, The LA Times, ABC,NBC,CBS,NPR,PBS, The Chicago Tribune, the Sundays shows ad infinitum have been at it for multiple generations. Any longtime reader of the Wall Street Journal knows that the paper is only conservative on its editorial pages. The news articles on politics are unapologetically liberal. The Washington Times is a small (actually miniscule) niche newspaper that found its voice only after Reagan, decades after the constant liberal inculcation served up by the major news dailies.

The lack of any historically informed opinion on the left when it comes to balanced coverage is shown most dramatically in the left's reaction to the rise of mediums like talk radio or Drudge. The left has been eating its own news cooking for so long they become outraged when someone changes the menu, ignoring the fact that the menue is still 80% or more comprised of their regular diet.

JFO must have been s... (Below threshold)

JFO must have been sucking his Flavor-Aid this morning.

Reporting the news is all about facts and opinion and deeply held beliefs. It is also about making a living.

Take a look at Drudge. He is making a mortal fortune as a portal. What is a portal? Right, it is just links to the paid work of some professional. Does Drudge pay those folks he links to? Probably not.

And most of his links are to traditional print media. Frankly, most of televised media, which pays the best, can by no means be considered in depth coverage of anything. It is all about sound bites.

Does Kevin pay Jay, Lee and the other editors? I haven't a clue. I suspect he doesn't pay enough for Jay to get on a plane and fly to Chicago and demand access to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's records.

Another problem we have is that the public tries to find a source of news that caters to their world view. All you must do to confirm that bit is to look at the political beliefs of those who watch Fox as opposed to the other MSM networks.

It started most recently with Cronkite and it has reached a zenith with Olberman and Hannity.

But bias has always been with us.

After John Adams was elected President, the Sedition Act was passed. Abigail Adams, the President's wife, used to go into a self-righteous frenzy when one certain newspaperman published his bias against Adams, calling him old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled and toothless. Bennie Bach was treated in kind with his detractors calling him a prostitute son of oil and lamp black, who should be
dealt with like a Turk, a Jew, a Jacobin or a dog - and that his newspaper should be suppressed.

Under the Sedition Act, 17 out of 18 editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers were arrested including Bennie Bache, who was beaten by those who didn't like him before he was arrested. It should be noted that besides calling him names, Benny Bache also exposed a lot of plans that Adams had for turning the country into a regency.

Benny got out on bail and his newspaper, the Aurora became the most popular in the country, driven so by a public who wanted to be informed.

Unfortunately, Benny died at the age of 29 from one of the plagues that infested our cities of the time, but his wife carried on and eventually, Thomas Jefferson was elected. Jefferson, Adams VP, reversed the Sedition Act and the First Amendment was saved in large part because Benny Bache stood up to John Adams.

But that isn't all. It seems that presses that Benny used to get his message out were inherited from his Grandfather, Benjamin Franklin. [Extracts from "The Backside of American History", by Ed Wallace.]

We need our free press, even when they are biased. We need a way of paying those who will then devote their full time to bringing us the information we need, if not always the information we want, along with the bias we love to support.

And now we have the internet, which might have acted as a way of balancing Walter Cronkite, when that talking head almost single handedly caused the loss of South Vietnam. Well, with help from JFK, who had Diem killed.

But don't give up on traditional media yet, we still need a way of paying the editors, the reports and the analysts for what they do, or they won't be around to do it. Then what, press releases from campaigns? A speech by Obama?

Hey Rob:<block... (Below threshold)

Hey Rob:

i know it's your job to discredit the candidate opposed to yours, but it would be great if bloggers brought a little bit of self awareness to the office every day.

I agree with you. Now go tell that to Lee Ward on wizbangblue or the nits on dailykos and see how far you post survives.

See, the playing field isn't level. Dissent is tolerated on Jay Tea's side of wizbang, but not on Lee Ward's. I have no idea why Kevin Alyward supports that double standard. I do believe that JT's side gets way more reads.

Many conservative blogs support dissent. Most liberals blogs do not. That is just the way it is. Now tell me who supports freedom of speech.

LarryThere's no do... (Below threshold)


There's no doubt Mr T has the right to write whatever drivel he so chooses and to regularly demonstrate that he suffers from ODS.

JFO, and Jay Tea consistent... (Below threshold)

JFO, and Jay Tea consistently honors your right to say things against him, denigrating his character, and against anything he writes, denigrating its value.

Unlike yet another liberal blogger who recently (this morning) made a correction to an obvious error I pointed out in one of his posts, but refused to let my comment pass his "moderation" rules and be posted because I gave a truthful account of what his candidate recently said.

Larry, I believe Kevin is s... (Below threshold)

Larry, I believe Kevin is simply adhering to the old axiom: Never get in the way of your opponent when he's in the process of destroying himself.

I prefer to liken the Obama... (Below threshold)

I prefer to liken the Obama style to STALIN; mainly, because the Nazi/Hitler theme is so overplayed that the shock value is lost.....especially on the Left Wing.

Stalin is a more appropriate comparison. He would surround himself with "yes men" that were afraid to be the first to stop clapping for him, out of fear of a KGB visit in the middle of the night.

He had a habit of "erasing" people from history...Obama may want to do that as well.

JFO, instead of using the u... (Below threshold)

JFO, instead of using the usual dismissive generic insults, please provide substance. You've told us all many times how intelligent you are. Show it.

I, like hundred of others, ... (Below threshold)
John S:

I, like hundred of others, managed to get banned from Blue for repeating Lee Ward's vicious attacks on Obama made when he was still drinking the Hillary kool aid (and reminding him that they were his attacks). I haven't read a word by the thin-skinned asshole since.

But to Lee's dismay, the press will turn on Obama viciously. It's already started. They just can't help it. Too many young hack journalists major dream of being the next Bob Woodward, and Bambi is just too rich a target. Obama also is remarkably thin skinned, which will give him no end of trouble from the Washington Press Corp.

As for those worried about the "Fairness Doctrine" shutting down Talk Radio, check out these numbers from AP on 979 news stories shown by the networks between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24:

"ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive [for Obama], versus 31 percent [for McCain]."

With a bias like that already documented, it is the liberal press that will be paying billions in fines to the FCC.

Let's hope JFO is a woman b... (Below threshold)

Let's hope JFO is a woman because if "it" is
a man, he has lost all testosterone.

Hey JFO, what's it like having no testosterone?


JFO - "There's no doubt... (Below threshold)

JFO - "There's no doubt Mr T has the right to write whatever drivel he so chooses and to regularly demonstrate that he suffers from ODS."

You've had a bit to say in this thread but it's mostly of the thin air variety.

So, exactly, just what do you find right or wrong in three MSM outlets being tossed from obama's campaign plane on the final weekend before elections day?

1) The McCain didn't kic... (Below threshold)

1) The McCain didn't kick the Times' reporters off, just one opinion columnist with a history for just plain making shit up.
B) That columnist had been thoroughly vile to the candidates.
III) The Times itself has been thoroughly vile to the candidates.

Good, Jay. So it seems like the same, but it's different, because when McCain did it she deserved it.

Sounds just like something the abuser in an abusive relationship would say.

By the way, you're not the first to use that metaphor for describing the relationship between the press and an administration.

Brian, the Times' REPORTERS... (Below threshold)

Brian, the Times' REPORTERS are still on the McCain plane. Only the opinionator (Google up "Dowdify" some time to see just why keeping her around might be a bad idea) was shown the exit.

ALL the representation of the papers who endorsed McCain were evicted.

It's. Just. That. Simple.

But apparently not simple enough.

And that link you provided barely uses the metaphor, not spelling it out in the least, as well as being factually incorrect and amazingly stupid. Rockefeller has a long history of leaking secrets for his own purposes, and the person who leaked Plame's identity -- Richard Armitage -- was never brought up on any charges. Libby was convicted of not sharing the same recollection of certain conversations as others did.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, but that is no great surprise, when you're involved...


Alan Colmes has a bu... (Below threshold)

Alan Colmes has a bunch of acolytes here who practice the art (deception) of moral equivalence. I am not as impressed with their efforts as they are. But then I am not afflicted with Obamania, a disease known to cloud people's minds.

Senator Stevens was convicted. THAT is a moral equivilent, not some tenuous connection between Palin and the AIP compared to Obama and his connection with Bill Ayers.

And so it goes in the Land of Oz.

It was a long time ago that... (Below threshold)

It was a long time ago that the question of truth vs. perception and spin was given a voice that was recorded for posterity. In response to Jesus claiming to be "the Truth", Pilate said, "What is truth?"

I believe Pilate's meaning was, "Ah, 'truth' is such a hard thing to define." (Sounds a little like, "Deciding when life begins is above my pay grade.")

My observation has been that we're in that sort of era again. Many people don't have a clue how to recognize truth, and really don't care anyway because they want to believe what they already believe (and not be confused with facts). So they accept whatever arguments or evidences seem to support their beliefs, without testing those arguments or evidences.

Most people are even afraid to express their beliefs, calling them instead, "feelings", as in, "Well I just feel that gasoline is $2.99 a gallon." (Yes, people say "feel" even when dealing with such a clear-cut fact!)

Therefore, when pressed, most people turn emotional, and when the believe their beliefs are under attack, they believe their personhood is under attack, and lash out with an emotional tirade of name-calling against the person who dared try to argue anything with them. (That's where that saying came from: "If you argue with a fool, so is he.")

The people of Jonestown believed what they wanted to believe. Case closed.

The surest route to what Ob... (Below threshold)

The surest route to what Obama TRULY believes is via the women in his life...his mother, who abandoned him, his grandmother, who became 'a typical white person' for her efforts, and his wife. The best analysis is Spengler's over at Asia Times:


JFOTo say t... (Below threshold)


To say that Obama is NOT capable of doing something petty but McCain IS, ignores the simple fact that all of us can so do and have done.

LarryI didn't say ... (Below threshold)


I didn't say anything about Obama. If you're going to say what I said at least quote what I said for cripes sake.

What I said is who gives a rats ass about this kind of crap. Only Mr T and some of the rest of the right wingers care about drivel like this.

This is pretty much what you see and read now from the right. Crap about nothing and the reason is obvious. You have no cogent arguments about the issues so folks like Mr T and others are reduced to nonsense about tossing people off airplanes. Do you really think the majority of the people in this country give a rip about this nonsense?

Lawyer marcI don'r... (Below threshold)

Lawyer marc

I don'r care who throws who off an airplane over whatever. Got it? Get It?

I care about the economy, my 401K, some friends who are in deep shit with their mortgages, the makeup of the Supreme Court, the unemployment rate, the economic forecast, the projected recession, the state of the National Guard, Iraq, Afghanistan, my taxes, womens' reproductive rights, the majority in the Senate and the House, the rebuilding of our armed services, our crumbling infrastructure, the education of my grandchildren ,social security, to name just a few issues.

Only a right winger with fear of losing on Tuesday would care a wit or write about politician's airplanes and their passengers; Obama's aunt and the endless drivel being circulated about utterly meaningless political "gotchas" and inane labels like marxist, socialist, communist, nazi blah blah blah. You wonder why your side is about to have its proverbial ass handed to it?

Got it now lawyer mac?

JFO is JUST FRIGGING OBNOXI... (Below threshold)

JFO is JUST FRIGGING OBNOXIOUS. You try to sound like you know what you are writing but you come across dumber than dirt.

I don't minimize the threat... (Below threshold)

I don't minimize the threat of Obama or of the "Fairness" Doctrine. I will, however, note that the internet was designed to withstand Soviet strategic nuclear attack and that fact combined with the sheer rebeliousness of the typical gun and bible clinging American citizen spells difficulties for the left if they try it.

JFOI dunno where t... (Below threshold)


I dunno where that comment from me came from. I guess I had a brain lockup over some other post you did. Sorry.

Anyway, if you include ME in this:

This is pretty much what you see and read now from the right.

Then you are obviously not reading what I have to say.

By the way, have you seen Obama's call for a Civilian Paramilitary Force that he made last July? He wants it to be funded at the same level as our current military.

I have about decided that if Obama wins, I can make money selling brown shirts to that group.


JFO~I am not reall... (Below threshold)


I am not really sure why this kind of post would set you off. Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, it is up to each of us to be aware of what we can do to make our lives better. All those things you listed, why don't you think those are of concern to other people? Just because J is using an analogy of a candidate from his perspective doesn't mean those other issues are not important. Those don't happen to be the subject of the post.

dooz, you are very right about emotional perception and the comfort zone that makes us feel safe. Unfortunately, it can lead us down the wrong path.

"What I said is who give... (Below threshold)

"What I said is who gives a rats ass about this kind of crap."

That's not all you said, even though it's your usual fall-back position: "It's not important to me, so it's bullshit."

You're like a broken record. You lash out at one person's free speech, then casually admit they have a right to it. Then you lash back out again. Do I really think the majority of people care about this? Oddly enough, it matters to you while you flog away at whether or not it's "important".

Frankly, countless incidents like this are quite revealing of one's character. That you or someone else would categorically bat them down, as if they're unrelated and unimportant incidents, tells me much too. Do you not look at the 'whole person' before you decide to befriend them? Especially before you hand them the reins of power?

JFO said who cares it isn't... (Below threshold)

JFO said who cares it isn't important to the current problems. Well how about we list some unimportant things JFO and his ilk thought were so important: GW choking on a pretzel. GW spitting. GW slouched in a chair at a meeting. GW having a "fake" ranch.

All of the above were really important for the left and the MSM to report and make fun of for a few days at least. I am sure some of my conservative brothers and sisters can list many others so JFO can be shown how trivial his group is. ww

OysterLets straigh... (Below threshold)


Lets straighten this out so even you can't change what I mean. Mr T has the RIGHT to write whatever drivel he chooses to write. I'm not lashing out at free speech I'm just stating my opinion about the content of a post. I suppose, correct me if I'm wrong, that you think things like airplane passengers are germane to the many issues (significant numbers of which are crisis in nature) facing our country and the choice of a leader to deal with them? I doubt it. But then you've surprised me before.

Who here has changed what y... (Below threshold)

Who here has changed what you meant? You said you don't give a rat's ass about what Jay posted. Then you said he should stick to fiction, suggesting he made stuff up. Jay responded, asking you to point out the inaccuracies. Then you replied with, "I didn't say you were wrong..."

I don't know about you, but I always felt that character is best defined with how well a person's actions match his words. And, while we're at it, the behavior that Obama displays in certain circumstances, which is the subject of this post. If Obama were elected, and this piece was posted on November 5th, would it still be about fear of losing?

One of my fears is in O p... (Below threshold)

One of my fears is in O pushing to suppress the few conservative sites and channels we have.
Isnt he pushing for the fairness act that would be anything but fair... ? thus leaving only the liberal pro O channels, stations ...

which is yet another infringement on our rights--freedom of speech

JFO, you're not just statin... (Below threshold)

JFO, you're not just stating an opinion on Jay's choice of subject. You're denigrating his character in the process. You also used it to broad brush others. Your attacks are always ad hominem in nature and you sweep whole groups up in the dust pan with him.

This is what we call "flailing". Your very first comment didn't address one single point in Jay's post. In fact, you go on to clearly admit that you did not say it was untrue. You made no effort to do anything except to try and call into question the character and motives of anyone who dares to agree. Yet you show no such compunction to wonder about the character or motives of the person and the actions of the individual under discussion.

If it's so unimportant, why did Obama carefully choose to toss all the reporters from the very papers that endorsed McCain? Why would he do that unless he was attributing the editorial staff's endorsement to any individual who worked for that paper?

This is what it looks like. He didn't like the editorial staff's decision so in the final days, he decided to punish the reporters. Even the friendly ones.

<a href="http://www.adishak... (Below threshold)
the Imam Mahdi:






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy