Drive-By Media

Apparently, multiple "Jornalists" in the State Run Media attended a focus group on President Obama the other night.

Both Dan Balz of the Washington Post and Gloria Borger of CNN were there.

The message we're supposed to take away from this focus group: Republicans (and to a lesser degree Conservatives) shouldn't read too much into President Obama's cratering poll ratings.  Independants still want President Obama to "succeed."  Even the "Independants" who voted for McCain are emotionally invested in President Obama.

Balderdash.

President Obama's poll ratings are tanking because he ran the most dishonest Presidential campain of my lifetime.  When you run as a moderate centrist (with a HARD CORE left wing legislative record in both the Illinois State and US Senate) no one should be surprised the public has a massive negative reaction when you govern as a hardcore leftist; this is infinitely more true when your most "moderate" position is MORE bailouts.

(OK, admittedly, President Obama's only genuinely moderate position is continuting George W. Bush's successful Iraq policy.  That's also been his most successful move.)

Here's what I find hilarious: back in 2005, no reporter in the then Drive-By, now State controlled, media offered any similar words of caution to Democrats when George W. Bush's political standing was in peril.

In 2005, no then drive-by, now state-run, media reporter advised Democrats not to go for the kill against George W. Bush.

In 2005, the dominant storyline was when Americans would rise against an "out of control" President.

Contrast 2009 vs. 2005 in the media narrative.

In 2005, American Citizens who undermined our troops were considered patiots.  In 2009, genuine Patriots are called "Teabaggers."

In 2005, dissent was Patriotic.  In 2009, dissent is un-American.

Gotta go to Bed Soon; Here's My Point:

Right Now is the Time to (figuratively) go for Obama's jugular.  Jim DeMint was right...we can destroy the Presidency of the most dangerous person to hold this office of my lifetime over the next few months.  We shouldn't be afraid.

In 2005, Democrats were confronted with a Popular President; they did everything within their power to destroy him politically and personally.

Turnabout is fair play.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

Fareed Zakaria writes a safe too little too late article on Iraq; no single money quote:

Obama still has the power to shape a decent outcome in Iraq. In doing so, he could help change the political dynamic within the Arab world and present a new model of America's relations with a modern, Muslim, Arab country.

Not that any other President of the United Staes was talking about that 6 and 1/2 years ago (when it was tough) or anything....

(Since I'm gonna go through the article graf by graf, I'd like to pre-emptively (there's that phrase again) inform Mr. Zakaria that his opinion on the liberation of Iraq and the surge remains as irrelevant now as it was in 2003 and 2007.  The only reason I comment on his opinion now is because the drive by media gives him more coverage than he deserves.)

Next, emphasis on slow:

Iraq is going through a slow but crucial transformation, from war zone to new nation-state. The next set of policies that Washington and Baghdad decide upon will determine how well this turns out.

Duh.

Next:

When the surge was announced in January 2007, I was somewhat cautious about it. I believed that more troops and a proper counterinsurgency strategy would certainly improve the security situation—I had advocated more troops from the start of the occupation—but I believed that the fundamental problem in Iraq was political discord among the country's three main sects and ethnic groups. The surge, in my view, would alleviate those tensions but also postpone the need for a solution. Only a political agreement among these groups could reach one.

Insert the word might between but and also and everyone believed this; what's your freaking point?!?

Also, rephrase "Postpone the need for a solution" with "Buy Us Some Time" and the surge suddenly looks a lot better.

I was wrong in some ways. First, the surge turned out to be a more sophisticated strategy—encompassing political outreach to the Sunnis—than I had imagined. Second, the success of the surge empowered the Baghdad government, brought Sunni rebels out from hiding and thus broke the dynamic of the civil war. Sunni militants have now been identified, their biometric data have been collected and their groups are being monitored. They cannot easily go back to jihad. The Shiite ruling elites, secure in their hold on the country, have less to gain by ethnic cleansing and militia rule.

Calling the surge sophistocated; how magnanimous of you!!!  I'm glad you were wrong in some ways!

They cannot easily go back to jihad.  No kidding (I'd use a scatalogical reference were I feeling less charitable).  Credit where it's due to the admittedly flawed Nuri-al Maliki with David Petraeus and Ray Odierno getting the assists on the goal.

Jihadists biodata being held by the US Military; why didn't the drive by media tell me about that in 2007 or anything?!?

Next:

An adviser to surge commander Gen. David Petraeus told the reporter Nir Rosen that the civil war in Iraq would end when the Sunnis knew that they'd lost and the Shiites knew that they'd won. Both now seem to be true.

Petraeus' adviser told you the war would be won when the Sunni's knew they'd lost and the Shiites knew they'd won....Gee, I'm sooo glad you and everyone else in the drive by media made that sooo easy from 2003-January 20, 2009 (btw, I could find a million more links on this topic if I felt like investing the time).  At least both now seem to be true....

Next:

while a renewal of the civil war—and a return to high casualty levels—is highly unlikely

Speaking for myself, I'd say damn near impossible over highly unlikely.  They again, I'm an optimist when my country takes courageous actions overseas.

Oh, and, by the way, I'm sorry your original concerns about the Surge remain.  I had forgotten that Fareed Zakaria's personal opinion is our primary metric for judging the success of America's Iraq Policy.

Next:

American influence is not what it was a few years ago.

Duh.  Thank you Fareed Zakaira.  Had I never heard or read you say this, I might not have lived a personally satisfying life.

Next:

Today, Arab regimes paint a picture of Iraq that suggests that American-led democracy has led to chaos, collapse and, perhaps more crucially, to Shiite tyranny. This is a damning indictment because for the rest of the Arab world—which is overwhelmingly Sunni—it suggests that democracy is something to be feared. It is also a convenient lesson because it means that Arab dictators can postpone indefinitely any need to open up their own political systems. But the message does resonate: opinion polls show that large majorities view Iraq as a failure and a sham democracy.

That's right because your buddies in the drive by media didn't have anything to do with this....

(Sorry, Common Dreams was the only site that still has that story up.  That said, much like the last link I could find a million more stories on a similar there if I felt like investing more time on this).

Next:

It isn't. There is much going on in Iraq that is admirable. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are beginning to work out their differences through negotiation, not violence. Freedom of speech abounds. A new economy is taking shape, in which entrepreneurs are creating jobs and a civil society. Elections are punishing thugs and theocrats who cannot deliver services and rewarding more-pragmatic forces. The appeal of radical Islam is waning.

Duh.

Next:

This was not Barack Obama's war. But it might well turn out to be his greatest legacy to the Arab world. Ambassador Ryan Crocker ended his distinguished stint in Iraq with these fitting words: "In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came."

Fareed, when we win this war, it will be George W. Bush's legacy to the Arab World.  Barack Obama will get the credit that Mariano Rivera gets when he comes into the game with Yankees up by 17,000 runs because he needs some work.

I end this post with the full text of my e-mail to Fareed Zakaria about this article:

In other words, what you're saying is that now that George W. Bush is out of office, it's OK for the drive-by media to say nice things about America's policy there.

How we leave being more important than how we got in has been true since day 1; the only thing that's changed since then is the American President's last name and the weather.

Some of us had the courage of our convictions to stick with Iraq when it was unpopular.

Generations from now, George W. Bush will be remembered as the American Hero he truly is while insignificant intellectual poseurs such as yourself will fade into the irrelevance you deserve.

To paraphrase Davy Crockett: You can go to hell; I'll stay in Texas.

Adam Cahn Austin, TX

P.S. "War of Choice" my ass.

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

Let's take a second and imagine a hypothetical Major League Baseball Team:

Said Team's best hitter missed the first month of the season...

Said Team's marqee free agent signings got off to slow starts...

Said Team's #2 Starter and Starting Catcher are currently hurt...

Said Team lost the first five VERY close games to it's main rival...

Said Team has issues with it's bullpen...

Said Team is playing in the toughest division of the wild card era...

and, finally, said team has a new staduim with quirks it must get used to.

Given the adversity listed above, one might logically conclude said team was mired in last place, 10 games under .500 and 15 or so games out of first place.

What if, instead of that happening, said team was actually 2 games over .500 and only 4.5 games out of first place (2.5 in the wild card).  Under the circumstances, any fair minded person would have to conclude that said team had actually weathered some pretty serious storms was in a good position considering that it's only May 17th.

Of course, if you're a fair minded person, that means, by definition, you can't get hired as a drive-by journalist.

What does the drive by media (even in said team's hometown) have to say about said team:

- Their New Stadium Will Fail (when it's barely a month old and everyone I know, including myself, who's been there has LOVED it.)

- Their Lefty Free Agent Pitcher is a Bust

- Said team is a National Shame

- Their New Stadium is Too Rich for It's Own Good

- Said Team's General Manager is Incompetant

- Forget the stadium, the very survival of America requires the Team to Fail

- And, finally, an unsubstantiated, hit-piece, book on Said Team's Best Hitter.

What are we to make of this Media Corruption?  To be sure, this sort of coverage is par for the course for the drive-by media.  Part of it is probably laziness, considering that class warfare and class envy are the easiest storylines to peddle.  Drive-by journalists rarely make more than $75,000 a year.  At the same time, given their own self-rightousness, they can't handle it when someone else makes real money for performing a real job. 

Still, that's not good enough.  While said coverage, as it relates to baseball, isn't the end of the world, it epitomizes a deeper threat the corrupt drive-by media poses to America's core values.  Class envy and class warfare poison American society against successful achievers.  When the corrupt drive-by media is allowed to trash America's most successful baseball team, should we be surprised when the President of the United States threatens a private company with the wrath of the the White House Press Corps?  Should we be surprised when the President of the United States wants the successful to bailout the mortgages of people who shouldn't have been given mortgages in the first place?  Should we be surprised when the President of the United States wants to raise our taxes in order to ration our Health Care?

Whatever your feelings on Baseball, we all have a stake in allowing the successful to be successful.

UPDATE: Make that 3 games over .500

UPDATE II: Make that 1.5 Games out in the Wild Card

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

I just had a quick thought about the Drive-by's that I wanted to jot down real quick before I go back to work.  Sorry, no links, don't have the time.

In 2005, the drive-by's were full of stories about how the Democrats weren't going to be cowed by some election defeat.  The Democrats where going to dust themselves off and be the loyal opposition to the evil Lord Bush.  The drive-by's even did them one bigger favor by completely adopting their talking points on Social Security and refusing to cover President Bush whenever he did an event on the topic.

In 2009, the drive-by's are full of stories about how the Republicans got killed and shouldn't even try to get back up.  The drive by's have even adopted the Obama talking points on Porkulus.

In the words of Alanis Morissette: "Isn't it ironic...doncha think?!?"

Cahnman out.

In what has to be one of the most shameful capitulations to the forces of political correctness I've ever seen, Rupert Murdoch has apologized for this hilarious cartoon:

As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

This is so disapointing on so many levels.

1) In Context, this cartoon was obviously about Economic Policy, not Race -- Much like Ronald Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, this cartoon was about economic policy, not race.  The monkey referered to the intellectual content, or lack thereof, in the bill.

2) This will embolden Rupert Murdoch's Enemies -- Does anyone think this craven act of appeasement will endear Rupert Murdoch to the left?  Of course it won't.  The left will always hate Rupert Murdoch because (along with Rush), he broke up their monopoly on public information.  Rupert Murdoch's cravenly callow capitulation is blood in the water to those who already want to destroy him.

document.write('<\/script>');

3) This gives the Race Industry New Life -- I can't remember the last time these people scored a victory this big.  They just humiliated one of the most successful businessmen in human history.  How can this possibly help?

4) The First Amendement -- While, technically, there aren't any first amendment issues here, let's not kid ourselves.  THIS was the perfect issue on which to make a stand on principle.  The New York Post didn't do anything wrong; why should they apologize?  Shouldn't the liberals apologize for wasting our money?

Shameful...absoluely shameful.

That is all.

Cahnman out.