Let’s get one thing, ehrm, straight.
I cannot stand John McCain, and I believe he’d make a terrible president.
But at the same time, I am taking a certain delight in watching the media’s increasingly shrill editorializing in the “news” as their Chosen Boy Obama continues to collapse.
Take this piece from the NY Times:
Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”
Yet when Gerry Ferraro was attacked by the Obama campaign, using the exact same tactic, the NY Times editorialized negatively about… Ferraro! The idea that St. Barack was politicking, twisting her words, or using false outrage was downright racist. At least if you wrote for the Times’s editorial page.
Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).
Really?
I’m going to do what the NY Times (and the Congress) fail to do and actually read the bill in question that Obama voted for.
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.
The bill Obama voted for calls for “comprehensive sex education.” It amended the bill to change the lower grade from grade 6 to kindergarten. And it mandates education on the prevention of STDs, including prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to do that without an extensive discussion of sexuality.
I found this information with less than 10 minutes of Google work.
Will the Times retract their claim that McCain’s campaign spoke falsely? I doubt it.
(And remember, these are the guys who insist that blogging is ruining the quality of the news and that the Times is a more reliable source of quality news and factual reporting without bias. The gall!)
Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that Mr. Obama’s plan would not force families into a government-run system. “I would say this is an inaccurate and false characterization of the Obama plan,” he said. “I don’t use those words lightly.”
And surprise, surprise, Oberlander is a partisan Democrat who calls for a European-style socialized medical system.
Of course he’s going to slam anybody from any political background who does not believe that the government should be in the business of health care. And he’s also going to slam anyone who points out that the socialized medical systems he lauds result in a dramatic reduction in the number of privately insured people, resulting in the lack of choice and innovation that is inherently part of all of those systems.
Why point out such partisan affiliation by the critics though, when you can present them as a neutral party who is “outraged” at “misleading negative advertising?”
With each passing day, Obama and his campaign are showing themselves to be easily-bruised — almost George W. Bush-like in their inability to weather criticism. They’re presenting themselves as the hypersensitive, hypocritical, out-of-touch and outraged windbags inherent in the worst stereotypes of liberal Democrats.
If they want to avoid an electoral loss, they’d better refocus on the issues, reclaim the base that’s abandoning them due to persistent sexism and the “run to the right” on issues like FISA and the Patriot Act, and stop whining.
