Starting the Week Out Right

American Thinker
October 25, 2008


Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory
By Steven M. Warshawsky

Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.

What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.

This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.

Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.

Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)

Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.

Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.

There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)

Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.

The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.

Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.

Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.

So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.

Media Silence on Abortion Aids Radical Obama

Not News?

In Illinois, Obama Voted Against Protecting Born Babies;
Later Smeared Pro-Lifers as 'Liars'"

Two of the three presidential debates have now passed without either candidate being asked about abortion, an issue that nearly four out of ten voters said was "very important" to them, according to an August Pew survey. See:
Pew survey

What makes the abortion issue especially salient this campaign year is Barack Obama's extremely liberal record which may also explain why the big broadcast networks have practically avoided the subject.

TV reporters barely mentioned Obama's pro-abortion stance during the
primaries from the launch of his candidacy in January 2007 through the end of the primaries in June 2008, just six out of 1,289 network evening news stories about Obama (0.46%) mentioned his position on abortion; none discussed it in any detail. It was thus unusual when ABC's Terry Moran pointed out, in a February 25, 2008 story on World News, that Obama was "considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois...opposing efforts to ban so-called 'partial birth abortions.'"

Obama's stance protecting partial birth abortions puts him to the left of many liberal Democrats -- 17 out of 47 Democratic Senators,including Obama's running-mate Joe Biden, voted to outlaw such abortions in 2003, a position backed by 75% of the public, according to a 2007 Pew survey.

Senate vote


Pew

But besides the Moran story, only two other network evening news stories mentioned Obama's support for the procedure, including an April 21, 2007 CBS Evening News story briefly noting Obama's condemnation of the Supreme Court for upholding the federal law banning such abortions.

But Obama's most extreme pro-abortion move came in Illinois, when he voted against a bill to protect babies born alive following unsuccessful abortions, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A similar bill was brought before the U.S. Congress, bolstered by the testimony of a Chicago-area nurse named Jill Stanek, who described how a baby who survived an "induced labor abortion" was abandoned by the hospital staff. Stanek testified: "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long."

In 2002, the federal law protecting born-alive babies passed on a voice vote without objection from any Democrat, including strong liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer.

But in Illinois, Obama helped kill a similar bill when it came before the Health and Human Services committee he chaired. Challenged about his vote this summer, Obama lashed out at pro-lifers, claiming the state bill he opposed lacked a "neutrality clause" protecting the status quo on abortion, something liberals demanded and received before agreeing to the federal law.

"I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely, fully in support of the federal bill," Obama told CBN on August 16. "That was not the bill that was presented at the state level."
CBN story

Four days later, the Chicago Tribune documented how Obama and his committee voted 10-to-zero to add the required "neutrality clause" to Illinois Senate Bill 1082 -- and then Obama and five other state senators voted to kill the bill later that same day. A CNN "fact check" on that day's Situation Room refused to conclude that Obama had unfairly attacked his critics as liars. "Looking at the bills, the language is similar, but the Obama camp says...there were concerns about undermining Illinois abortion law," reporter Mary Snow delicately suggested.

Chicago Tribune

NRLC post

As for the broadcast networks, none have yet mentioned this radical aspect of Obama's record. That silence helps the Democrat cast himself as more centrist than he really is, but shows how hopeless the media's "watchdogs" are when it comes to their liberal friends.

Archive with the previous editions

My Interview with Congressman Rogers

I live in the 8th Congressional district and yesterday I actually had the opportunity to speak for a few minutes with my Congressman, Mike Rogers! He was even willing to go on-the-record with me about some current events. The interview is as follows:

AP2: Good afternoon Congressman Rogers, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak with me. As a blogger I appreciate the opportunity.

CMR: It is my pleasure!

AP2: Congressman, you have traveled extensively in Iraq, and have had innumerable in-depth discussions with military, intelligence and civilian officials. What is your opinion of Barack Obama's trip to Iraq?

CMR: What bothers me most me most is he has changed his position, he has padded his plane with reporters and he is not listening to the on-the-ground commanders. He clearly disregarded the commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. It has become obvious that this is not an unbiased fact finding tour but a campaign opportunity. And it is offensive for the soldiers on the ground, who did not sign up to be a backdrop on an Obama campaign stop.

AP2: Barack Obama seems to be formulating policy as he goes along. He was against the surge. However now that the surge has been successful he has backtracked.

CMR: Barack Obama's campaign positions are always formulated to maximize votes. Yes, he opposed the surge, now he is calling it an "Improved Security Situation." First he's for timetables, and then he isn't. He calls for unilateral military action in Pakistan then backtracks. He vowed to meet with various heads of terror states including Ahmenidjad of Iran—"without preconditions" and then he had to back track. He said what he thinks and then his handlers get a hold of him and he back tracks. He is the most "handled" presidential candidate I have ever seen.

AP2: That includes the media! A case pinpoint would be the New York Times refusal to print an editorial by John McCain in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper last week.

CMR: Oh absolutely! That was incredibly blatant, a complete repudiation of a fair and unbiased media. I recently saw a figure that media coverage for Obama is 65% to 35% coverage for John McCain.

AP2: Its funny, but I had this very same discussion with a liberal relative of mine recently. I did some research and a 2005 study by a UCLA Political Scientist found of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center. Also, surveys from 1978 to 2005 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative and are far more liberal than the public at large.

CMR: Well it obvious in this campaign. All three network anchors went with Obama to Iraq. So many of his fundamental policies are not being covered. His polices are in direct opposition to what Americans want, low energy costs, and the retreat of terrorists. The evidence clearly points to the liberal media picking a candidate for the voters. It is a terrible disservice not only to the voters but also to our country.

However, the polls are tight, so I believe that Americans are seeing through it. Americans do not want on the job training at their expense and the security of our country.

AP2: Thank you Congressman Rogers, once again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.

CMR: Thank you, Joan.

This article is crossposted on RightMichigan