USpolitical.com

CNN has an in depth investigative report regarding Sarah Palin’s assertion that Obama associates with terrorists.  It is unbelievable how overwhelmingly it contradicts the conclusions made by the same network’s own feckless “Truth Squad” headed up by Josh Levs and unquestioned by “journalists.”

Here is the investigative report:

And here is the “Truth Squad” at different times:

Besides the fact that Josh Levs has proven himself a joke of a reporter for something called the “Truth Squad,” he wants to play the semantics game, because in his mind, that is more important than investigating the past relationship between Obama and Ayers.

The anchors can hardly hide their dismay that anyone would question the Obamessiah’s past, mentioning Obama was 7 or 8 years old at the time Ayers bombed federal buildings.    Anderson Cooper does hide his bias a bit better than the others, but maybe that is because he just sat through a damning investigative report.

If media bias were not so serious, this would be funny.  Same network, different facts.

Less than an hour after Palin finishes her speech, CNN.com has this image on their homepage.  Come on CNN, are you that lame?

????

Looks like it has since gotten replaced.

Hat tip to Matt Lewis.

I actually watched this segment on CNN and my blood got boiling as she was sitting there saying these things to the McCain spokesman:

Tucker, though, this obviously putting this young woman, Bristol Palin smack in the media spotlight at what’s already got to be a very challenging time in her life. I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?

Here is the youtube video.

This is after Obama had said to leave the Palin story alone.  Brown herself admits that such should be the case in a perfect world but then, she says, in reality this will be scrutinized.  It’s almost like she was saying, “Yeah, decent people would leave this alone but since CNN has become a sleazy and tabloidish arm of the Obama campaign, I’m going to press the point again and again.”

I’ve noticed her more than once totally twisting questions and discussions in favor of her point of view which conveniently lines up with Obama’s.  Really silly and as Matt Lewis at Townhall.com says,

This is irresponsible journalism, to say the least — and a further example of liberal bias which is permeating most cable news networks these days.

Besides the part about the pregnant daughter the spokesman was asked about Palin’s experience as David Gergen continued his assault on Palin as a Vice-Presidential pick.  McCain needs someone that can hit back instead of just answering questions through deflection.  To Cambell Brown’s credit, she asked the only admissable question and that is, “Since McCain made experience an issue, particuarly foreign policy experience, how do you defend his selection of Palin?”  I would think you’d bluntly state the fact that Palin is running for vice-president or something else…maybe about her being Governor from a state with 2 international borders and matters she handled in that regard?  Instead he mentions talking points about the Alaska National Guard and Cambell Brown presses him to say one thing she decided as head of the Alaska National Guard.  Fortunately he didn’t freeze up and say what that Obama person did a few months back but I think that hes got to be quicker on his feet.  He kind of fumbled out a couple of answers about making decisions but couldn’t actually name a specific one to silence and embarass Brown.

Other questions about Palin’s experience in general though are hilarious considering the top of the Obama/Biden ticket.  Here is a vice-presidential candidate that has not aspired to high office and you want to compare that to a first term senator who has already written his own memoirs?

The MSM will do their best to establish McCain as an indisputable front runner.  I think Romney’s hope lies with an “ABM” treaty (Anybody But McCain) getting established and Romney getting tremendous support to counter McCain.

I would attribute much of McCain’s higher poll numbers around the country to the star treatment in the media, and so I think it is funny that now that he is in the position Romney was a few days ago (leading in the vote and delegate count), we’ll see that as reason for even more star treatment and assertion of front runner status…”no need to give Romney that treatment, McCain is our man! He is up 30 delegates now!”

He has been the media’s darling since before New Hampshire.  New Hampshire’s victory bought him a month of goodwill.

Romney’s victories…maybe 24 hours? 

Romney just can’t get ahead with the MSM.

If McCain wins in Florida, his status as the national front-runner will be cemented.

If Romney comes out on top, the battle for the GOP presidential nomination will be up in the air.

An article here at all-encompassingly added to my already forming opinion.

Today I got an email from Glenn Beck’s email list that includes a paragraph that really nails the nail on the head.

What Glenn finds interesting is that whichever state Mitt Romney wins (3 so far), that’s always the one that the media says isn’t important. Romney would be a change and people are voting that way as he is leading the GOP in delegates. Apparently the media isn’t noticing, because the only thing they report is that he should drop out if he loses Florida.

It is terribly important to recognize the future projections, but those are so heavily shaped by recent performance and the perceived media reaction to them. Recent performance should be enough to keep Romney at the front of the pack. Media reaction is another story. McCain and Huckabee seemed wildly acclaimed with their wins. Romney’s are always “catch up” victories that simply keep him in the game. McCain is at the point where “1 more win seals the deal.” If the roles were switched I simply cannot believe that the media would give as much attention to New Hampshire and South Carolina wins by Romney when compared to McCain victories in Wyoming, Michigan and Nevada plus 2 second place finishes in Iowa & New Hampshire…all resulting in the most delegates and most votes total.

But again, it seems to all come down to fund-raising on par with a lemonade stand. Financial success in life coupled and indeed dominated by nearly unparalleled fund-raising by a Republican Washington outsider just doesn’t count.

UPDATE: Great video over at all-encompassingly.com of Joe Scarborough explaining his take on things

Glenn Beck who recently got sick or something records himself as he recovers at home and watches the results of the Iowa Caucuses.

While I think one of the points he makes about evangelicals has been covered by the MSM, it certainly wasn’t covered in a way that it should have been.  Huckabee is lauded as a smart politician who secured an important demographic in Iowa, but they seem to leave it there without hammering the fact that that will never hold up once Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson and Paul stop splitting the rest of the vote.

Watch Glenn here on his site. 

Mitt Romney’s biggest fan, Hugh Hewitt, was at least impressed by Romney’s performance. It certainly wasn’t bad and got a B- from Time for the 3rd spot in their evaluation of the debate performances. Huckabee was considered the winner by many, particularly among the media analysts. His surge is by no means hampered by the star treatment he has been getting. I can only imagine what these analysts think…”Huckabee is good because he goes after the support of evangelical voters while all the other candidates are bad because they go after the support of evangelical voters…”

I’ve been surprised though how the way things have been spun or presented the day after. I was just watching Lou Dobbs and he has Gloria Borger discussing the part of the debate when Romney and Giuliani clash about the “sanctuary mansion.” All they show is Giuliani restating his original assertion that Romney employed illegals “under his nose.” “Under your nose,” which oddly enough is a term used for things people don’t realize until after the fact, yet he infers Romney’s foreknowledge and consent. Hehe. Freudian slip? This is right after Romney had refuted it having to resort to a gradeschool question due to Giuliani’s gross misrepresentation of his “hiring” of illegals. The part where he basically takes the gloves off and says, “Ok, let me explain it to you.” He then asks if Giuliani expects homeowners to individually question the employees of contractors they hire to determine the legality of their residency in the United States.

Gloria Borger’s analysis consisted of something about Romney mentioning funny accents. If you watch the whole exchange, that is not exactly the point Romney made. Is “he mentioned funny accents” the best CNN has to offer?

Then I read this gem which is featured at RealClearPolitics.com. Here is what E.J. Dionne had to say:

Romney, who kept coming back to the dangers of runaway government outlays, insisted that farm subsidies were different because “it’s important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the farm.” Romney helpfully explained all this opportunism by ticking off the list of states besides Iowa, home of the first presidential nominating caucus, where farmers loom large. He sounded as if he were merrily counting delegate votes in his head.

Was I the only one that heard Romney clearly state the reason for his position being that we never want our food supply to be under the control of other nations, the way our oil is? I mean, I guess I’m a little befuddled as to how a 5th grader could pick out specific explanations or arguments made in candidate’s statements but professional columnists are at a loss. Or, should I clarify? They are fully capable of simply picking and choosing parts to assemble their own spin.

Ah well. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Peggy Noonan presents another one of those extraordinarily revealing realities in the MSM. Her article here starts as follows:

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, “Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you’re ‘for the children.’ I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you.”

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being “manipulative,” using “hot images” and indulging in “the politics of personal destruction.” The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. “I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction–of destroying a person–is what you stand for.”

Oh, I wish I weren’t about to say, “Wait, that didn’t happen.” For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

McCain was asked recently what he thought of some comments that Romney had made at a fund raiser. The following is my own transcript with emphasis added taken directly from this video.

Reporter: Senator can I ask you about some comments that Governor Romney made? I don’t want to mischaracterize him because I’m not sure exactly what he said. But it seems that he said that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet OR that he said it was not necessary to have a Muslim in the cabinet to better conduct the war on Islamic extremism.

The reporter then asks a couple of questions:

Reporter: Would you want to appoint someone in your cabinet for that reason and what do you make of his comments?

McCain proceeds to only answer the latter question under the context that Romney only said he would never appoint a Muslim.

McCain: I think his comment is indicative of how he might govern and I think its absolutely wrong. You appoint the most qualified people for the job.

Someone there with McCain then mentions that there are Muslims currently serving in the US Military.

McCain takes it to another level and throws in a “Romney never served” jabs.

McCain: I wonder if Governor Romney who has never served in the military would allow Muslims to serve in our military.

McCain basically showed his willingness to take something completely out of context and misrepresent another candidate.

In responding to questions about his comments Romney said the following in this video.

Reporter: There was a report today that a businessman says that at a closed fundraiser in Vegas a couple of weeks ago he asked you a question about having an Islamic person in your cabinet and you said that based on the population of Muslims in the United States you don’t think it would be justified. First of all, we weren’t there, is that what you said?

Romney: No, no. Thats not. His question was did I NEED to have to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet? And I said no, I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to take on radical jihad anymore than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan or something of that nature. I just rejected that argument number 1.

Then number 2 I point out that the people who would be part of my cabinet is something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to at this point. But I don’t have boxes that I check off as to their ethnicity and its not that I have to have a certain number of each different ethnic group. Instead I would choose people based upon their merits and capabilities.

Reporter: So you would be open to having a Muslim person in your cabinet?

Romney: I’m open to having people of any faith and ethnic group but they would be selected based on their capacity and capabilities and the values and skills that they could bring to the administration. But I don’t choose people based on checking off a box.

Whew! After all that…I come away with a couple of things. Romney is just as reasonable as ever and McCain seems foolish. I wonder if the media would now press McCain for his accusation and presumption of knowing exactly what Romney meant.