Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits – including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations – GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.

“How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?” Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. “And under Immelt’s direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.”

MoveOn asked its members to sign a petition calling on Immelt to leave the administration, and Executive Director Justin Ruben called G.E.’s tax status “outrageous.”

“At a time when many in Washington, including the President, are worried about our nation’s deficit we should be punishing–not rewarding–companies like GE who are robbing the US Government and taxpayers of billions of dollars,” he said in a statement. “This sort of bad corporate behavior should not be rewarded with a top White House appointment.”

Why did it take the honorable Mr. Feingold so long to notice? Please forgive my cynicism but it is quite apparent that most politicians no longer speak out to help the American people – they speak out to help themselves. If indeed he does have a mind to challenge Barack Obama for the nomination in 2012, this is awfully good timing to start noticing corruption that was all too apparent to the rest of us three years ago.

Ironically, CBS also reports that President Obama has lambasted the very tax loopholes that companies like GE take advantage of. So are you telling me he is not aware of this contradiction?

The only people not aware are the ones who don’t follow the news closely enough to know the President is railing against the very people he has been helping all along. There seems to be a current bent to punish small businesses who create the bulk of jobs in this country in favor of crony capitalism and powerful über companies who wield far too much political influence as it is.

By the way, during 2008, GE owned NBC/MSNBC and also owned Newsweek. These are three organizations that morning, noon and night posted grossly favorable press to Mr. Obama in 2008 while trashing his primary opponent Hillary Clinton with a zest not before seen. That’s quite the coincidence…

MoveOn was so busy denigrating Hillary and trumpeting Obama beyond all sense, I suppose they did not notice the coincidence either. Did they not think there would be some sort of quid pro quo?

And if President Obama finally notices the “coincidence,” you can be sure he will not throw Immelt under the bus unless and until it is politically advantageous to do so.

With Fox News against the White House attempt to censor the cable network. Check that, to shut DOWN the network. I am assuming that, by now, you have heard of the concentrated attacks on the Fox News Network by Administration officials, and the president himself. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this earlier in the week, “Fox Is Not A News Station?,” if you need to catch up.

Well, the strangest thing has started to happen as the White House has continued its unprecedented attack on a major network, not just freezing out a reporter here or there as other administrations have done, but a flat out drive to shut down this network. I can scarcely believe it myself, but what has happened recently is that reporters from other networks, even the Washington Bureau chiefs of the main news outlets, have started to stand WITH Fox News.

It all began with one of my favorite reporters, Jake Tapper of ABC News. He is one of the very few national reporters from a major network to consistently challenge the Obama campaign, and now the Obama Administration. And he did so again just the other day as his post entry indicates:

“Today’s Qs For O’s WH – 10/20/09”
From this morning’s gaggle in White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ office:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Let’s just stop right there. Jake Tapper referred to Fox News as a “sister organization.” That is HUGE, people. His use of that phrase speaks volumes, as he indicates a solidarity with Fox News (good post on that very topic at Commentary Magazine here). Perhaps it is even a bit of a warning shot across the bow that the White House needs to back the hell off from this attack on a major press outlet.

The Q&A continued:

(Crosstalk) Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -jpt

You know I can’t stand Gibbs anyway, that mealy mouthed worm. But Tapper demonstrates what a stand up guy he is by pursuing this line of questioning, and not letting Gibbs, or the White House, off the hook.

I mentioned above that the White House is doing its darndest to completely shut down Fox News. The following video is a good summation of what has happened thus far, the latest attack by the White House, and what the other networks did:

I know, right? They know, I gather, that this time around, it may be Fox News, but next time, it could be CNN, or MSNBC. I would love to think that the solidarity of the major networks was the result of it simply being the right thing to do.

The All Star Panel on Fox News takes this on, too, with a bonus clip of Obama’s discussing Fox News:

Uh huh. Sure, he’s not losing sleep over it. If he isn’t, why are he and his minions going out of their way to ATTACK Fox News? It most certainly IS “breath-taking in its pettiness” as Mr. Barnes put it.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”

And, when he said this:

“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said this about the importance of a free press and our responsibility to it:

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man (sic) will proceed in improvement.”

Hopefully, that is exactly why the networks are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue. They know, as we do, that our liberty is at risk when the press is under attack from its government.

Like Jefferson, like the Washington Bureau, like Jake Tapper, like many of you reading this, I stand on the side of a free press, and on the side of our liberty. It is our duty, it is our call, it is our very democracy.

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh – how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time – HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes – that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

As a liberal from way back, I must say, if anyone on the left allows themselves to be represented in thought or deed by the likes of Keith Olbermann and Village Voice’s Michael Musto, they really need to rethink their life choices. Jay Leno has also earned himself a spot on the “who’s got the attitude of a pig” list by insulting Hillary yet again, but we’ll get to him in a minute. First, Olbermann did a feature on Countdown the other night where they “outed” the unfortunate runner up of the Miss USA contest, Carrie Prejean, as having breast implants! Oh, horrible, horrible and most horrible!! To the pitchforks!!

I bet Keithie puffed his chest up really high to deliver this news! What a precious little rooster he is! As you may be aware, the unfortunate Miss Prejean found herself in the cross hairs for truthfully answering a question she should never have been asked at a beauty pageant – her position on gay marriage. Even the Donald makes clear that question was ridiculous. No other contestants were asked this. Why her? This was nothing more than Perez Hilton trying to gain mileage for his cause in California, as payback, perhaps, for Prop 8 getting passed.

But Mr. Hilton and others like him would do well not to pick on Miss Prejean who had the courage to answer honestly, whether you agree with her or not. Especially since her position is no different than President Obama or VP Biden.

Mr. Hilton would do better to direct his anger toward President Obama, who gave his voters very mixed messages on the subject, saying vote “no” on Prop 8, but that “marriage is only between a man and a woman.” That was what ABC News referred to as a “nuanced position.” I see. It is fascinating that they must all find someone else to project their anger onto because they cannot bring themselves to lay responsibility at the proper door. And guess what, the fault ain’t with Miss Prejean for Prop 8 passing. Many of President Obama’s voters voted “Yes.”

It is hard to even stomach the following transcript, to see the depths of depravity of these two gents as they rip this woman apart with glee:

OLBERMANN (4/30/09): After going rogue at the Miss USA Pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was enjoying her new title as self-appointed champion of “opposite marriage.” Pageant officials are now retaliating. They’ve outed her—for having breast implants. Our number-one story, Miss California now being accused of using performance-enhancers…
snip
OLBERMANN: There it is here, Miss California is opposed to same-sex marriage, which is at least marriage between two human beings, but she has fully endorsed now marriage between a man and a woman who is partially made out of plastic.

MUSTO: Well, she’s dumb and twisted. She’s sort of like a human Klaus Barbie Doll. I mean, you tell Perez Hilton you’re against gay marriage? That’s like telling Simon Cowell you’re against screeching a show tune. This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa. You know, she thinks innuendo is a Italian suppository. Can I keep going? On the pageants now, they really should have easier questions, like what’s your middle name or what show was Seinfeld on. I mean, this girl’s a ding-dong. I didn’t even like her earrings.

OLBERMANN: The cruelest cut of all. The outcomes here, too. Perez Hilton looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader. And the new poster girl against same-sex marriage is not just a boob, but a fake boob. This is a real win for this cause, is it not?

MUSTO: Well, Perez is the new me, let’s leave him alone. And using the C word is something I wouldn’t do. But yes, Carrie Prejean, however you say it, she’s getting something off her chest. But what she really needs to get off is the price tag there.

OLBERMANN: Now, the moral in this is what? Never cross a beauty pageant official who knows you’ve had implants?

MUSTO: Yes, exactly, that’s it. This has escalated to a public shaving. I mean, and what Moakler has left out, Keith, is they also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis, and sand her Adam’s Apple and get a head-to-toe waxing. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?

OLBERMANN: There it is, your guilty pleasure. The one and only Michael Musto of the Village Voice. As always, good to talk to you, Michael.

Geez, guys, why don’t you just point a camera into your locker room while you slap each others’ naked butts with a towel? There is something sick and sad about this. What does it say about Keith Olbermann that he takes “guilty pleasure” about denigrating the mind and body of this woman, whatever her personal beliefs may be? With all the important news, and yes, even with all the other “guilty pleasures” out there, I wonder what made Olbermann once again, spend time demeaning and insulting a woman. I hate to give the guy oxygen, but clearly if he didn’t think he’d find a grateful audience for this sort of tripe, he wouldn’t be doing it.

Furthermore, if this woman were pro gay marriage (unlike Obama), waving an Obama sign, shouting “yes, we can!”, do we still think Olbermann and Musto would have decided to single her out and talk about her this way? If she had the “correct” politics, her implants, or anything else about her, wouldn’t be a problem for them. While we are on the subject, not long ago, President Obama appointed Governor Kaine to be the new Chairman of the DNC. He is reeeaaally against gay marriage. Got any “guilty pleasure” segments devoted to picked on this gentleman, Keith? I thought not.

Hypocrites, much?

But hey, don’t feel bad, he isn’t the only pig who could use a little lipstick to pretty himself up.

As Rev. Amy reported yesterday, Thursday night, Jay Leno joined the fray yet again to prove that sexism and denigrating characterizations of women are alive and well – even though the election is long over. While dancing around the dial Thursday night, this was the joke I was unfortunate enough to hear Jay Leno tell in his monologue:

“Kenyan women have vowed to withhold sex until their leaders stop bickering — they said they got the idea to withhold sex from a recent visit from Hillary Clinton.”

Thank you, Jay Leno, for advancing the theory to the audience that Hillary Clinton must be a robotic, frigid, ice queen. Surely everyone knew that — didn’t they? For anyone who laughed at this joke, you belong with Keith and the rest. Nothing like being disrespectful for no reason to an honorable public servant who is carrying your guy’s water! She is also the one who has been saying “women’s rights are human rights” for many years. Remember, Jay? But surely, let’s trash someone who is an advocate for women. Why not? It’s still open season for your cheap jokes, isn’t it?

Just to provide a little context, Jay also nailed Biden for his little gaffe about the swine flu – but he was making a joke at the man’s expense with some cause – VP Biden screwed up running his big yaw to unintentionally cause a panic. But why did Jay bring Hillary up? What possible reason could he have to make her the brunt of yet more insults? The woman has higher popularity than even the President right now, surely because she has already logged in over 75,000 miles working to improve our foreign relations. She has restored the State Department as the center of US foreign policy, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the military. Wow. Sounds awful.

Surely we must find a reason to make sure the audience laughs at her. Personally, I don’t find Leno funny and never have. He’s always been a rather cheesy comic. But he has a huge following — this is the best he can do? Certainly, this is not the best we can do.

It is the year 2009 and apparently, many of the boobs on the news (whether these males have boobs are not), and our typical misogynist comedians, can find nothing else to talk about, joke about, crow about than to make women the brunt of their foolish put downs and insecurity.

I will not give it a pass. This “boys will be boys” crap is way old and indicative of the fact that in this day and age, too many outlets are sending the message that it is still not necessary to treat women with respect.

Until men and women stand up in a loud voice and protest, boycott and shout from the highest hill this has to stop – guess what? It’s not going to. Let those who would demean women find new jokes to tell or find themselves out of a job.

Holy Toledo – is he allowed to SAY something like that?!?! I hope he has someone watching his back. At all times. Oh, but you’re not gonna believe some of the things our “media” have cooked up. Check this out:

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled “Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story.” Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama’s campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue — “Obama’s American Dream” — filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.

Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.

Okay. NBC. ABC. Two of the major networks using OUR AIRWAVES have lost all semblance of journalistic integrity.

What the HELL is the matter with these people?!?!? Good grief, how in the world will they ever cover anything remotely challenging for The One??? Oh, right – what they care? They are clearly making a lot out of this:

What’s troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there’s nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

“The Obamas’ New Life!” blares People’s cover, with a shot of the family. “New home, new friends, new puppy!” Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: “I Think I’m a Pretty Cool Dad.” The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle “is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — combined!” for the fashion world.

Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed “Generation O”?

I’m sorry – were you saying something? I couldn’t hear you through the grinding of my teeth. When did the MSM and the National Enquirer change places? If you will recall, this year, it was the latter that that actually broke some real news. The MSM? Not so much:

Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. “OBAMAISM — It’s a Kind of Religion,” says New York magazine. “Those of us too young to have known JFK’s Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us,” Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it “BAM-A-LOT.”

“Here we are,” writes Salon’s Rebecca Traister, “oohing and aahing over what they’ll be wearing, and what they’ll be eating, what kind of dog they’ll be getting, what bedrooms they’ll be living in, and what schools they’ll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas’ tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?”

I am seriously on the verge of being ill here. “It’s a Kind of Religion”??? Worshiping this lying, cheating, bamboozling, hoodwinking, race-baiting sham of a politician who hasn’t had an original idea I can discern, who got everywhere he is by stepping on the throats of others? THIS is a “kind of religion”? Okay, it is clear to me. We have gone to hell in a hand basket.

No doubt, Thomas Jefferson, who knew the importance of the Fourth Estate for maintaining a democracy, would be, check that, probably IS, rolling over in his grave right now. Kurtz asks the right question about this, well, INSANITY:

But aren’t media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?

“Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not,” historian Michael Beschloss says. “Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they’re interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president.”

So can a sense of optimism, reflected on USA Today’s front page. “Poll: Hopes soaring for Obama, administration,” the headline said, with 65 percent saying “the USA will be better off 4 years from now.”

Yeah, I saw that headline, too. I wondered who the hell they were talking to first, then realized it was probably an AP article. Sure enough, it was. Like they haven’t been in the tank all year long. Hahahaha.

And why, pray tell, would these young people think Obama is “cool,” yet know NOTHING for which he stands?? I mean, really – on what, exactly, are they making that determination? His listening to Ludacris? The misogyny? Reverend Wright’s racist ravings? What?? What a bunch of ridiculously uninformed children. And THEY are the future? Yikes. Sure will be interesting to see what happend if they ever get more than one brain cell to rub against another. Or as Kurtz puts it:

But what happens when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of governing? When Obama has to confront a deep-rooted financial crisis, two wars and a political system whose default setting is gridlock? When he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint some of his boosters?

“We’re celebrating a moment as much as a man, I think,” says Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, whose new issue, out today, compares Obama to Lincoln. “Given our racial history, an hour or two of commemoration seems appropriate. But there is no doubt that the glow of the moment will fade, and I am sure the coverage will reflect that in due course.”

FDR?? LINCOLN?? Are they INSANE????? LINCOLN??? The ONLY thing Obama has in common with Lincoln is living in IL. FDR? What are you people SMOKING???

And, sure. You just know you can count on the media to reflect reality at SOME point, right? Because they have demonstrated time and again how willing they are to reveal the realities of who Obama really is, and what he has really done. Oh, yeah.

And not for nothing, but I sure as hell don’t remember the media being so glowing and positive about Hillary Clinton, who, since they were clearly unaware of this, was a “historical” figure by being a woman who received more votes than any other Democrat ever, as well as winning a primary, and a lot more than one. But hey, let’s bury THAT “moment” as quickly as possible so no one intrudes on The One’s ascension.

Thankfully (or despairingly), there is an itsy bitsy teensy weensy ray of light:

One of the few magazines to strike a skeptical tone is the London-based Economist, which endorsed Obama. “With such a victory come unreasonably great expectations,” its lead editorial says.

Naturally, it is European based, not US based. Big surprise. One could say that:

Web worship of Obama is nearly limitless. On YouTube alone, the Obama Girl song, “I’ve Got a Crush on Obama,” has been viewed 11.7 million times. Even an unadorned video of the candidate’s election night speech in Chicago has drawn 3.5 million views.

Can someone please tell me how it is that this virtual unknown with the thinnest resume I have ever seen, who couldn’t even get a full time job in any university or business on his lack of documentation, has manipulated the masses so masterfully with “words, just words” and no real deeds of which to speak? I mean, besides the characteristics he has demonstrated thus far besides those listed above?

Yes, this is a change:

I am not trying to diminish the sheer improbability of what this African American politician, a virtual unknown four years ago, has accomplished. Every one of us views his victory through a personal lens. I thought of growing up in a “Leave It to Beaver” era, when there were no blacks in leading television roles until Bill Cosby was tapped as the co-star of “I Spy” in 1965. When the Watts riots broke out that year, the Los Angeles Times sent an advertising salesman to cover it because the paper had no black reporters. The country has traveled light-years since then.

Is it nitpicky to point out that Obama is bi-racial, reared by his white and Indonesian family, not his African one at any time? But hey – why rain on (more of) their delusion? Those pesky facts, why am I bringing THOSE up? This is SPECIAL, you know:

It is hard to find a precedent in American history. Ronald Reagan was a marquee star because of his Hollywood career, but mainly among older voters, since he made his last movie 16 years before winning the White House in 1980. Jack Kennedy was a more formal figure after winning the 1960 election — “trying to look older than he was, because he thought youth was a handicap in running for president,” Beschloss says — but quickly took on larger-than-life dimensions.

“The Kennedy buildup goes on,” James MacGregor Burns wrote in the New Republic in the spring of 1961. “The adjectives tumble over one another. He is not only the handsomest, the best-dressed, the most articulate, and graceful as a gazelle. He is omniscient; he swallows and digests whole books in minutes; he confounds experts with his superior knowledge of their field. He is omnipotent.”

Soon afterward, Kennedy blundered into the Bay of Pigs debacle.

The media would be remiss if they didn’t reflect the sense of unadulterated joy that greeted Obama’s election, both here and around the world, and the pride even among those who opposed him. Newspapers were stunned and delighted at the voracious demand for post-election editions, prompting The Washington Post and other papers to print hundreds of thousands of extra copies and pocket the change. (When else have we felt so loved lately?) Demand for inaugural tickets has been unprecedented. Barack is suddenly a hot baby name. Record companies are releasing hip-hop songs, by the likes of Jay-Z and Will.I.Am, with such titles as “Pop Champagne for Barack.” Consumers, the Los Angeles Times reports, are buying up “Obama-themed T-shirts, buttons, bobblehead dolls, coffee mugs, wine bottles, magnets, greeting cards, neon signs, mobile phones and framed art prints.”

“Unadulterated joy”? That the MEDIA ITSELF created, and for which it fanned the flames?? Yeah, absolutely – don’t start having any kind of ethics now on our behalf! We might all fall over dead from the shock of it. So, please, just spare us and keep us in our little Happy Obama Place. Oh, yuck – making myself sick now…

Oh, and just in time for the holidays:

A barrage of Obama-related books are in the works. Newsweek’s quadrennial election volume is titled “A Long Time Coming: The Historic, Combative, Expensive and Inspiring 2008 Election and the Victory of Barack Obama.” Publishers obviously see a bull market.

Oh, JOY!!!! Another way for Americans to spend all of our hard earned, ever dwindling dollars! Yay!

And speaking of cheers:

MSNBC, which was accused of cheerleading for the Democratic nominee during the campaign, is running promos that say: “Barack Obama, America’s 44th president. Watch as a leader renews America’s promise.” What are viewers to make of that?

There is always a level of excitement when a new president is coming to town — new aides to profile, new policies to dissect, new family members to follow. But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win?

Obama’s days of walking on water won’t last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality.

Do you PROMISE, Mr. Kurtz? Because I am WAY over all of this Messiah worship we have had to endure, even as the most qualified candidate in decades was kicking his butt in the primaries on a whole helluva lot less money (that untraceable mountain of Obama’s money. See Ani’s post, “Obama’s Questionable Internet Donations Raise Suspicion at WaPo.“). But hey – that never stopped the “media” from promoting their rapturous tale of who Obama was, how he was the One for whom we had been waiting, regardless of what the people said with their votes…I mean, really – how much reporting did they even do on the Michigan fiasco? How many people in this country really knew what happened there? How many people outside the states where there were caucuses actually knew about the vast amount of caucus fraud? Close friends in Baton Rouge had no idea about a lot of this because their state wasn’t contested, so how would THEY know what had really been going on? As one of them said, they sure didn’t see this on ABC News! No, indeed. And that is exactly the problem. So many of the issues that should have been covered about Obama simply were not, or left to the “News Briefs” section. Not so for anything the least bit suspect or negative about any of the other candidates (or if it was one of Obama’s BFFs, like John Edwards. In that case, the MSM buried critical information the voters deserved to know.). And on it goes…

You may have seen this new video already, but personally, I find this to be a glaring indictment of the Fourth Estate,as if the above was not enough (H/T to American Girl in Italy for the heads up on this):

Holy Toledo. Add these results of the Zogby Poll commissioned by John Ziegler of “How Obama Got Elected“, and bear in mind these were MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Just to be clear – Palin did not ask for the clothes the MSM made such a brouhaha about, and she did not keep them. They were given to, or will be auctioned off for, charity.

For an added bonus, you can watch this John Stoessel interview of voters:

YIKES. Are people not required to take Civics classes any longer?? Really??

What a sad, sad state of affairs, for our educational system, for the Fourth Estate, for democracy, and for this country. We reap what we sow…

The three 30-minute ads or infomercials cost Obama nearly $1 million each. This is the first time mark the first time in 16 years that a White House contender has aired commercials of that length on broadcast networks. Billionaire Ross Perot paid for 11 half-hour ads during his 1992 bid as an independent.

According, to USA Today, Obama’s ad spending will easily surpass the record $188 million President Bush spent in 2004. How is this possible? How does Obama have $230 million to spend on television advertising? The answer is that he accepted campaign finance reform and then rejected it when his campaign decided he was not just a cash cow, but the whole herd. Meanwhile, John McCain, who first began working on campaign finance reform with Senator Russell Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin,13 years ago, is limited to $84.1 million because he accepted taxpayer funds for the general election.

Once again, John McCain shows himself to be a man of his word. And Barack Obama?
Well, he has already shown himself to be a liar, since he went back on his promise to accept campaign finance reform as well as on many issues. But as if that is not sufficient cause for alarm, one has to wonder about the conscience of the man who is being hailed as the messiah of the Democratic Party. One has to wonder about a man who claims to have worked in the field of education for years.
$230 million for television advertising????
It takes my breath away.

And I’m wondering, how many school books that might buy. How many salaries for teachers? How many college educations?
Hmmm . . . How many mortgages might that pay? How many gas tanks might that fill?
How many hungry bellies might that feed?
I guess Obama is for redistribution of wealth as long as it is not his wealth.
I am stunned at the utter lack of morality and ethics on display here.
For shame, Obama. For absolute shame.
Let’s not waste a moment letting the world know that the American public will not be bought. Let’s get ourselves to any field office or campaign office, especially if it is in a battleground or border state.
This is the real deal. So I say, Just Say No Deal. Vote McCain/Palin and do the right thing.

The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain’s “Joe the plumber” analogy struck a chord.

According to the AP article, McCain closed the gap for the following reasons: he had a strong debate performance last week; McCain’s television advertisements on Obama’s encounter with Joe the Plumber resonated with voters; and many voters believe their taxes will increase under an Obama administration.

Yahoo News must be dissatisfied with the results of the AP‘s poll, for a few hours after the AP released the results of their survey Yahoo published a story on Sarah Palin entitled “A Drag on the Ticket?” Normally one expects to read titles that are nothing more than unfounded allegations in the form of a question at partisan blogs, not on the websites of news organizations. But we are dealing with the American press, who in my opinion have demonstrated that they are nothing more than a group of Daily Kos drones with desks in press rooms this election cycle.

Citing an NBC poll and quoting Obamabot Chuck Todd of MSNBC, Yahoo News claims voters have reservations about Sarah Palin’s qualifications. But notice how they are unwilling to aver that voters have reservations about Palin in the article’s title. Also notice how they acknowledge Palin’s popularity in the first paragraph of the article. Phrasing the allegation as a question, Yahoo News hopes to raise doubts in the minds of readers who might otherwise have a favorable opinion of the Republican Vice Presidential running mate. That is their wish, and they hope it will be fulfilled as it is interpolated in the minds of readers who mistake their partisan bilge for so much factual news.

Let us return to the AP article. According to the subjects they interviewed, voters have concerns about Obama’s qualifications, not those of Sarah Palin. I quote:

“I trust McCain more, and I do feel that he has more experience in government than Obama. I don’t think Obama has been around long enough,” said Angela Decker, 44, of La Porte, Ind.

Notice how Yahoo News only quotes Obamabot and Washington elite political insider Chuck Todd, not an ordinary voter from the state of Indiana. If they bothered to interview ordinary voters, they would discover that most working Americans view Obama as unqualified.

But also notice why Yahoo News feels compelled to raise doubts about Palin. According to the AP poll, Caucasian voters and lower income voters who actually work for a living are abandoning Obama. I quote the AP again:

• Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.
• Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.
• Doubled his advantage among whites who haven’t finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.
• Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.
• Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.
• Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points.
• McCain has cut into Obama’s advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.
• Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.
• Intensity has increased among McCain’s supporters.

How does one reduce McCain’s advantage with Caucasian women? How does one convince voters that the unprepared Obama has enough experience to address our current economic woes? How does one temper Palin’s appeal with rural voters? How does one neutralize McCain’s recent surge in the polls? The question to all these questions is to portray Sarah Palin, the woman who is drawing large crowds everywhere she campaigns, as unqualified, inexperienced and divisive. Misogyny determined the outcome of the primary, and it will surely sway some voters during the general election. Or at least this is the media’s wish.

So Yahoo News will publish questionable polling data from NBC on the same day one news organization announces that the race for the Presidency is tied. While some would interpret this as a mixed media message, I prefer to view it as so much media wish fulfillment. After all, the media dreams while its indolent reporters sleep.

I would like you to think about some numbers:

In the 2004 Presidential election there were more than 122,000,000 votes cast. In 2006 for the Congressional race, which put the Democrats in charge of both the House and the Senate, 80 plus million people voted. I was surprised that 42 million folks decided not to vote.

Now look at the media numbers. According to Drudge Report, the number of folks watching nightly network news is less than 22 million:

CBSNEWS w/ Couric shed a half a million viewers, falling from 6.4 million to 5.9 million;
ABCNEWS dropped from 8.1 million to 7.6 million;
NBCNEWS slumped from 8.2 million to 7.8 million.

The numbers for cable shows is even less. Fox News, with O’Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, sits atop the heap with around 4.3 million viewers. CNN and MSNBC combined rarely exceed 4 million viewers. Let’s be generous and assume that no one watches more than one show and that the “viewers” are individual and unique. For the national news shows we are talking around 30 million people tops.

Radio, by contrast, reaches over 160 million people each day. And conservatives appear to continue to dominate in this market. Rush Limbaugh, for example, attracts around 14 million listeners. (Note–I have not located a comprehensive summary breaking down total numbers for conservative vice liberal radio stations. If you have it please post below or send me an email and I’ll update this piece)

So where are most of the people who are voting getting their information? It looks to me like radio, rather than network television, is the key medium. I’m also curious about the televised medias’ constant drumbeat against Sarah Palin while she continues to to draw record crowds to her events. Sarah’s authenticity, like that of Joe the Plumber, has struck a chord with average Americans that the media elites don’t comprehend.

So, does he double down — or does he compensate?

Time sees Kaine as a “double down” – a man so like Obama that their combined weaknesses just intensify the lack of experience all around. Biden, the “compensator,” would help strengthen the ticket by being strong in Obama’s weak areas, but he is not an “outsider.” And Obama is all about the “outsider.”

However, Biden has said before he was not interested in the vp slot and feels he is better used in the Senate.

Read the rest ->

Senator Biden, a front-runner in the media VP stakes whose own bid for the Democratic nomination this year was short-lived, said on NBC television: “I am not interested in the vice presidency.”

——————-
“Unlike most other people, I’m being straight with you. If asked, I will do it. I’ve made it clear I do not want to be asked,” said the Delaware senator, 65, whose birth state of Pennsylvania is a big prize in November’s election.

Biden said he would have to say yes because “am I going to say to the first African-American candidate about to make history in the world that, ‘No, I will not help you out like you want me to’? Of course I’ll say yes.”

So, Biden would be on board, but reluctantly. Perhaps not the vibe the Obama camp is looking for. And this is not news. So either the float of his name is to persuade him or to make it look like Kaine has some competition.

2) Slate has a piece discussing Obama’s ability to shrug off any damaging information.

You could call Obama the Teflon-coated candidate, but this would miss the fact that his slickness goes all the way to the core. What has gone unexplored until now is this: How did Barack Obama achieve superslipperiness without becoming greasy?

———————-
Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama has constructed a professional résumé low on embarrassing material. In this regard, Obama’s lack of legislative accomplishment is a genuine achievement. They can’t hit you where they can’t find you, which is a gambit that worked for Roberts in his confirmation hearings. Separating the real Obama from the persona is probably impossible. . .

3) Slate did a piece last week about the post-world tour Obama that you shouldn’t miss. Apparently, Obama’s Bush-like aspects really came through to some reporters asking about the trip.

Barack Obama’s trip to Iraq was so presidential that at moments, he sounded like our current White House resident. When Karen Tumulty of Time asked Obama what he’d learned on his trip, he said, “It confirmed a lot of my beliefs.” Lara Logan of CBS asked him if he was ever in doubt that he could lead the country in war as commander in chief, and he answered, “Never.”

After seven and a half years of George Bush, we should pause when a man auditioning for president says that the facts confirmed his beliefs and that he’s never in doubt.
—————————————
Before Obama flew to Baghdad, I asked his top foreign-policy adviser, Susan Rice, what kinds of questions he’d asked of his advisers over the months to test whether his Iraq withdrawal plan still matched the realities on the ground in Iraq. Rice gave me no examples. And now that the trip is over, we have no better sense of how Sen. Obama thinks about Iraq. It’s not that I expect grand revelations. But Obama still holds the same policy views he did more than a year and a half ago, even though a lot has changed since then in Iraq, and a lot of those events appear to contradict his earlier views. We know that Obama hasn’t moved, but we don’t know, really, why that’s so.

The author goes on to discuss Obama’s views of the surge and how his predictions around that surge were so wrong.

Some people would say the vote on the surge was one of Obama’s most important as a senator. As Obama pointed out regularly during the Democratic primaries with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom voted to authorize the Iraq war, a person’s past vote tells you something about his or her judgment. Obama has talked a lot about the clarity of his judgment in opposing the Iraq war. He also once suggested that if he’d been forced to cast an actual vote for or against the Iraq war as a senator, his view might have been complicated. On the surge, we get a chance to watch Obama grapple with similar complexities in real time. Or, at least, we should.

—————

If Obama was wrong about the tactical gains that would be made by the new strategy and wrong about how the Iraqi political leaders would react, can his larger theory about how Iraqis will respond to a troop pullout remain intact? Perhaps, but he has the burden of explanation. Does he elide contradictions, claim they’re irrelevant, and generally spin? In his interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, he suggested that he’d always said the surge would decrease violence in Iraq. That’s not just spin. It’s not true.

The author ends comparing Obama’s certainty and unwillingness to re-evaluate his stance to Bush’s famous stubbornness. I’m not sure I agree with that. Obama has been distressingly able to change his position on any number of issues, to the point where no one knows just where he stands.

But the Obama campaign has framed Iraq as his signature issue. Although in no position whatsoever to cast a vote (he was not a part of the federal government at the time) on going to war, Obama has said over and over he opposed it – going so far as to film a “do-over” of a speech where he said he opposed the war.

The fact that the American public largely agrees that the war is unnecessary and wrong means Obama cannot back away from his other positions on that war. Doing so would expose the fact that he is as likely as anyone to overlook the complexities of our involvement and might not make the correct subsequent decisions. If he can keep voters’ minds on the fact that he was originally against the war, he might make them believe he will make correct decisions from here on out. No one can promise that.

4) Realclearpolitics has the Brian Williams interview with Obama mentioned above, although not in transcript form. (I prefer transcript so I don’t get distracted by the visuals.)

I decided to watch, on NQ readers’ behalf, without coffee, and noted a few items. Times are a little general, not exact.

Obama claims, at 2:26, that his world judgements will make us safer.

When asked about his judgment about the surge, at 4:05, he remains adamant that he was right.

And if we had followed his opinions about Iraq – around 5:22, we would not have spent money or lost lives.

Around 7:35 or so, Williams asks Obama about his discussions with General Petraeus. Obama says Petraeus was animated in talking about what he sees for Iraq, as was Obama. But Obama then says he expected that Petraeus would be focused when talking about what he needs in Iraq, but when Petraeus moves to command Central Command that might change.

That strikes me as very telling. Despite the seriousness of the topic, Obama expects Petraeus to change his position when he leaves Iraq. Now, if the general was in charge of expense accounts and was moving from being a traveling salesman to being a manager, I’d have no issue with that. But the notion that Petraeus might significantly change his positions on Iraq as he changes his job concerns me that Obama sees everything as relative, squishy and negotiable.

He also shows that while he expects subordinates to advocate for their needs, he, himself, will have to remain above the fray to make more over-arching decisions – probably on some cost-benefit basis the way a manager would.

This does remind me of Bush – the unwillingness to get down in the weeds to thoroughly understand an issue before dealing with it. Obama plans to delegate and to be the decider.

At about 9:38, he mentions the residual force to be left in Iraq. While this has not gotten much attention, I’m real curious about what this force will be, how big it will be and what it will do. It so reminds me of how Vietnam got started.

At 11:00 he says again that his judgement on “this set of issues” [Iraq] has been right.

At 17:30 Obama talks about drawing down contractors at same rate as troops – as if contractors only do dining halls.

Somewhere around 21:35 or so, Williams asks the burning question about whether Americans should be concerned about Budweiser being sold to Belgium and the Chrysler building being sold to Abu Dhabi.

Williams follows this up by saying at about 24:17:

“You’ve said on this trip that you’re probably able to fall asleep standing up. . . How often do you have to remind yourself that if you get this job you want it’s going to push you beyond the limits you thought you had.”

Obama answers by saying he has found his “fifth and sixth” gear and that he thinks the job needs energy and enthusiasm.

Watch it if you like. Having subjected myself to the 25 minute interview, I can’t say I recommend it.

5) The LA Times has a piece that says Obama met with some influential women to talk about, among other things, the treatment of HRC during the campaign. Unfortunately, the story pretty much stops there. It would be nice to hear what actually got said.

6) Dick Morris discusses this “women problem” Obama has.

The problem is that older women don’t like Obama as much as younger women do. While 70 percent of women under 40 have a favorable opinion of the Democratic candidate, only 58 percent of women in their 40s feel the same way, and only 52 percent of those over 50 see him favorably.

For a Democrat to be losing among women over 40 is without precedent in the past 20 years.
———————-
But a bigger problem may be a cultural alienation older white women feel toward Obama. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright may linger as a worry in their increasingly gray heads as they contemplate an Obama presidency. This fear of the unknown and the gap they seem to feel with Obama is so strong that it is overcoming their normal proclivity to back Democrats.

Well, duh. OK. Fine. But consider the source. It’s entertaining, but I wouldn’t put much stock in it.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

This picture was sent to me earlier this year by a friend that is a buddhist monk. We are both of the faith typically called “Tibetan” Buddhism. As such, we’re pretty much automatically labelled enemies of the Chinese People. I wanted to share this picture with you because of several things going on right now concerning His Holiness the Dali Lama, the candidates for President, and the upcoming Beijing Olympics.

This picture demonstrates the real force being the so-called rioting monks and the violence last April in Tibet. It was posed so China could justify the disappearance of over 10,000 Buddhist monks and nuns. You are seeing this correctly. It is a group of Chinese soldiers holding monk garb. This was taken by a friend of ours right after some of the riots. I think you can figure out the rest for yourself.

I decided to re-open this issue since I was also speaking to my Lama today. A lama is a spiritual teacher along the lines of a Rabbi in Judaism. His wife, Ang Dawa, is an activist for the Sherpa peoples. They both are from Nepal but were born in a section where the line between Nepal and China is more relevant to countries than native peoples. The Sherpas are the natives people that live in the Himalaya Mountains and you all probably know them best for their incredible mountaineering skills. Ang Dawa has just been elected to the new Nepali parliament and has been an activist/journalist for the UN for many years for Human and Women’s Rights. She just wrote an article in the local newspaper stating that there are basic human rights and they include being able to practice religion as you see fit, including becoming monks and nuns. It was a very generic article on human rights and mentioned no countries by name. However, there are over 10,000 tibetan buddhist monks and nun–many of which are Sherpa–unaccounted for after the april/may so-called uprisings. This includes some of the senior most and most respected rinpoches. They have simply disappeared.

While I am not surprised the President George W. Bush has decided to attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, I had held out some hope. This week there have been several headlines out there concerning both the Olympics and the struggles of the Tibetan people to maintain their cultural identity and practice their religion. There have also been some activities on the parts of presidential candidates. I argue, both activities are essential windows into their approaches to Human Rights.

The first was this picture of John McCain and his Holiness the Dali Lama. The New York Times in its story stated this:

“But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.”

source: New York Times

At the same time, we see this move from the Obama Campaign.

As reported by Advertising Age, it appears that the Obama campaign is going to be a major TV sponsor of the Beijing Olympics.

“It’s official. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal’s Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads. According to NBC’s political file, the campaign had initially requested information about 500,000, $2 million and $4 million package of Olympics spots. The network also offered the candidate a $10 million package.”

So, let me ask you a question. Aren’t the progressives supposed to be the ones concerned with Human Rights and standing up for them regardless of the economic consequences? Is it way too cynical of me to see this move by the Obama campaign as finding a way to profit and gain votes from an event that highlights a country that mistreats its peoples? This is Communist China folks! Monks and Nuns disappear there. Google and MIcrosoft have had to build limits into their software to suppress free speech in this country.

Oh, btw, after the Chinese government protested the publication of Ang Dawa’s statement of basic human rights, there were threats issued to the publisher of that paper in Nepal. The editor was assassinated shortly thereafter.

Is this the type of thing the Obama campaign should be sponsoring with campaign dollars?

__________

From my blog, “Sky Dancing in a Man’s World.”