Posts Tagged ‘Obamedia’

Presidential Double Standards: Bush and Obama Given Different Treatment on Same Issues

November 26, 09

Hypocrisy Meter from theblogprof.

When Bush golfed while two wars were ongoing and the deficit was dropping, the media excoriated him for his apparent carefree attitude – including Michael Moore, who did a trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11 based on it. (Bush responded by quitting the game for the remainder of his time in office.)

When Obama golfs ten times more frequently (update: now 60 times, equaling two whole months on the green), while two wars, a recession, trillion dollar debt and terrorist attacks are ongoing, the media praise him for his ‘strategy’ and analyse how it takes times away from his basketball – and even try and claim he’s taken more flak than Bush did for vacationing during a major terror attempt. Why, they even praise him for his vacations!

When hawkish anti-terror policies were under Bush’s watch, they were loudly protested and condemned by Michael Moore, Code Pink and so on. When the same are continued under Obama’s watch? Silence.

When Bush’s deficit was high, CNN focused on the record breaking spending. When Obama’s deficit is many times higher, CNN focuses on how it boosts jobs.

When Bush the elder had 6.9% GDP growth rate, it was not considered a recovery. When Obama has 20% real unemployment, it’s a turnaround!

When Bush had 2.7% GDP growth, NYT called it a ‘gross national letdown’. With Obama’s 2.0% GDP growth, NYT calls it ‘steady improvement’.

When Katrina happened, the media went wild with baseless claims of sniper attacks, cannibalism and how George Bush failed to act – including Kanye West ranting that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”.

When five states suffered intense freezing cold, Obama enjoyed a turned up thermostat and wagyu beef. Nary a peep from the media.

When liberals portrayed Bush and Condoleeza Rice (a black woman) as apes, it was lauded as creative freedom of speech. When Obama is portrayed similarly, it is racist hate and must be banned.

The same goes for witch doctors and the Joker.

And apparently, Bush is the only one who can be compared to Hitler or Nazis. If you carry protest signs denouncing Nazi-like Dem policies, you are slandered as Nazi-supporting.

When people repeatedly called for Bush’s death, the media covered it ‘objectively’. When one sign saying ‘Bury Obamacare with Kennedy’ was spotted, the media went crazy over this ‘death threat’ against Obama.

Above from here.

When Bush exercised, the media called it ‘creepy’ and say it wastes time better spent leading. When Obama does it, they swoon and gush how it helps him do his job.

The same scavengers who savaged Bush over his vacations and golfing now suck up like remoras at Obama’s many more vacations and golf outings during the worst ‘recovery’ ever!

When the Bushs held a big dinner during a mild recession, they were lambasted for their ‘extravagance’. When the Obamas do it during 10.2% unemployment and 1.75 trillion debt, the media gush with teenage infatuation and avoid mention of the recession while praising the festivities – all 28 parties in December alone.

When Bush had a relatively low key inauguration in 2004 during a mild downturn, the media criticized his spending. When Obama had his massively grand inauguration during the ‘worst recession sinc the Great Depression’ which he was elected to reverse… Well, take a wild guess.

With Bush, the media’s job is to bash the President. With Obama, they think “above the world, he’s sort of God.”

With Bush, it’s okay to hurl serious and unfounded allegations at him. With Obama, ‘it is unfair and, frankly, political to take pot shots at the president‘.

When Rush Limbaugh recently said he hopes Obama’s policies fail, he is attacked – by the same man who hoped Bush would fail just minutes before 9/11.

When Rush Limbaugh calls Obama’s administration a ‘regime’, it is deemed unacceptable. When the liberal media did it 6000+ times to the Bush administration, it apparently goes unnoticed.

When Bush enters, the media remain seated. When Obama enters, they stand for him and then timidly sit down quietly while he speaks.

When Bush holds an Inaugaral Ceremony, he is lambasted in the media. When Obama does the same, the same media praises him.

When Bush led a broad coalition to invade Iraq to oust a mass murdering, UN-flaunting, rape and tprture using, chemical weapons flinging Saddam, the media excoriated him as a warmonger. When Obama attacked Gadaffi – who merely sent his army to fight with armed rebels – with a coalition half the size (update: one QUARTER the size!), he’s acting in the interest of peace. Where are the protests? See here for protests against the previous administration by contrast.

Ecen ESPN covers for Obama by editing out his gross misspelling of a team name as if nothing happened.

No wonder we call them the Obamedia.

And what about the Dem supermajority Congress?

When hard-working, high-achieving black man Clarence Thomas and Latino Miguel Estrada were nominated by Bush, the Democrats dragged them through every hurdle and racial insult possible. When ‘wise Latina’ Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Obama, suddenly she was the ‘first’ Latin American nominee and her opponents must be racists.

When Joe Wilson interrupted Obama’s speech shouting “You lie!”, he was criticized by the Dems. But guess who interrupted Bush back in 2006?

When people criticize Obama while the conflict in Afghanistan is ongoing, it ‘only serve the goals of al-Qaeda’. Tell that to Obama during Bush’s time of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now that Afghanistan is on Obama’s watch – crickets.

When Bush liberated Iraq with 40 nations backing him, he was a war criminal waging illegal invasions. When Obama wants to go to Syria with one… ONE ally…

When Bush had Gitmo, liberals screamed daily. When Obama has places far worse than Gitmo, crickets.

Plenty of Bush-bashing books have gotten favourable reviews in the media. But when someone submits a book detailing Obama’s ties to radicals, the media go rabid on him.

Compare joblessness headlines in the media for the two. Bush’s 5.7% unemployment:

The President’s Jobless Recovery
Frustrated Job Seekers Cause Jobless Rate To Drop
Economy Adds Few New Jobs
Low Jobless Rate Reflects Lost Hope
US Jobless Rate Drops But For Wrong Reasons

vs Obama’s much worse 8.6% unemployment:

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% Raising Hopes
Jobless Rate Drop Could Boost Obama
Obama Gets Economic Indicator He Can Crow About
Good News On Job Front For Obama
Jobless Rate Lowest In 2.5 Years

And again here.

When Bush broke election spending records and opted out of publicly-financed campaign spending, the media excoriated him. Guess how much noise was made when Obama did the same, only moreso?

And guess who criticized Bush’s deficit, saying: ‘Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.… And now has himself achieved a 1.75 trillion deficit?

When there is a massive oil leak, you can bet Bush’s oil connections would be all over the news… Not a peep about Obama’s.

When Bush struggled through 9/11, Katrina, two wars and financial collapse, the media didn’t sympathize with him – in fact, they piled on him all the more. Guess what their attitude to vacationing golfer Obama is, when he has played twice as much golf in 2 years as Bush did in 8?

When Bush couldn’t think of any mistakes he had made, the media ripped into him. Guess what the response is when Obama can’t think of any?

When Bush spoke in his usual style the media often did not ‘clean up’ his words or grammar to make it correct. When Obama does the same and the media doesn’t ‘clean up’ his words, they must be racist.

When oil prices skyrocket, the media loudly complains about it under Bush but ignores it entirely under Obama. Barely 1% of reports about the high prices even mention Obama’s drilling moratorium.

When Bush enacts some surveillance, he’s a despot. When Obama enacts far, unprecedentedly more… It’s more complex.

Via Moonbattery:

When Bush calmly spent 7 minutes finishing his reading of The Pet Goat to schoolkids after being told about 9/11, the media constantly mocked him. When Obama was told of Osama bin Laden’s confirmed location, he postponed his decision by SIXTEEN HOURS and the media spins it as decisive action.

Apparently it’s forbidden to question Obama’s grades and acceptance into tertiary education, but not Bush’s.

And imagine if Bush had spent millions blocking the release of his birth cert, would the media scold him or the seekers – as it targets the latter in Obama’s case?

The gist of the above with some specific examples in this excellent, tongue-in-cheek article at NRO, via Moonbattery.

And Laura Bush dares to point out the double standards.

See also this piece comparing and contrasting Obama and Bush and explaining why America – and even liberals! – miss Bush. Contains several references to the double standard criticisms leveled at them.

BONUS: see how the media reported on Reagan vs Obama during a recession:

No one blinked when reporters heckled Reagan and both Bushes… But when a reporter interrupts Obama briefly? RACIST!

Via Liberal Logic 101:

When Bush invoked ‘executive privilege’, Obama and his cronies blasted Bush. When Obama does it to defend Eric Holder whose acts cause the loss of hundreds of lives? Cronies defend it – even though that means Obama is the one behind the murderous operation! Including taking the contempt charge to the grand jury.

When Obama adds 200,000 fewer jobs than Bush, he’s doing a great job not like that failure!

The Federalist:

Anywhere, anywhere, but a discussion of Obama’s handling of national security as it relates to Islamist terrorists. Can you even imagine such journalistic avoidance under the Bush administration? Particularly, seven long years into the Bush administration?

From Washington Examiner:

Where Bush was asked every day if he regretted invading Iraq, Obama is never asked if he thinks leaving Iraq had something to do with the chaos engulfing the region, or the vulnerability of citizens here and in Europe to Islamic State-inspired attacks.

And while Bush was held responsible for every last casualty that occurred anywhere while he held office, Obama is absolved from responsibility for the massacres, rapes and enslavement of innocents that have followed his numerous foreign policy blunders — given a pass as the victim of forces he did not enable and disasters he didn’t create.

Pajamas Media:

A few hours before delivering that State of the Union, President Obama met with rapper Kendrick Lamar. Obama announced that Lamar’s hit “How Much a Dollar Cost” was his favorite song of 2015. The song comes from the album To Pimp a Butterfly; the album cover shows a crowd of young African-American men massed in front of the White House. In celebratory fashion, all are gripping champagne bottles and hundred-dollar bills; in front of them lies the corpse of a white judge, with two Xs drawn over his closed eyes. So why wouldn’t the president’s advisors at least have advised him that such a gratuitous White House sanction might be incongruous with a visual message of racial hatred? Was Obama seeking cultural authenticity, of the sort he seeks by wearing a T-shirt, with his baseball cap on backwards and thumb up?

To play the old “what if” game that is necessary in the bewildering age of Obama: what if President George W. Bush had invited to the White House a controversial country Western singer, known for using the f- and n- words liberally in his music and celebrating attacks on Bureau of Land Management officers? What if Bush had also declared that the singer’s hit song—perhaps a celebration of the Cliven Bundy protest—was the president’s favorite in 2008, from an album whose grotesque cover had a crowd of NASCAR-looking, white redneck youth bunched up with an African-American official dead at their feet? And what if the next day, Bush told the nation that he regretted not being able to bring the country together? Would there have been media calls for Bush’s impeachment?


Also this tipped by kesava:

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who’s side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident, would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed, would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced YOUR retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and
given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, the media blamed Bush. When Hurricane Sandy hit, the media praises Obama for doing basically nothing (even though a Dem Governor calls it worse than Katrina). What a blatant and disgusting difference.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George Bush would have taken a vacation involving 40 planes and 3000 people to the Taj Mahal in India, costing almost a Billion Dollars, would you have approved?

So, tell me again: what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can’t think of anything?

Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 15 months — so you’ll now have two years to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama, a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

TIME Magazine’s 2008 Obama Worship

May 23, 09

It has been said often before that the mainstream media is heavily slanted to the left, and gravitates towards Obama in particular.

For example, take TIME magazine. A weekly publication, Obama was featured on its cover 16 times in 2008, equivalent to one third of all covers in that year.

And here’s the worth-a-thousand-words from Track-a-‘Crat:

TIME 2008 Obama covers

Click the link above for the larger view.

AFTER Getting Obama Elected, Liberal Media Admits – Media Was Biased in Favour of Obama

November 9, 08

This should be an interesting factoid for the various commentors who seriously don’t believe there is any such thing as a huge liberal media bias in favour of Obama, over at here.


Here’s something we’ve been saying all along, but the Obama supporters who voted him in adamantly refused to be educated on, thanks to the Obamaworshiping media. Then again, it turns out they’re pretty much an educated but ignorant, un-informed, selectively deafblind bunch.

Via Gateway Pundit and Michelle Malkin, from How Obama Got Elected:

On November 4th, 2008, millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple… the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters

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!!


Obama appeared on HALF the Times magazine covers this year! No bias?


Via Gateway Pundit, from The Washington Post:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts…

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

…One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

As Gateway Pundit points out, journalists love the new… But they loved to trash Palin, while gushing adoringly over Obama.

Via Doug Ross, from the Philadelphia Daily News:

…there were enough reporters in 2008 who were willing to shed the cloak of contrived objectivity – to acknowledge the once unprintable fact that one side was lying more than other.

I myself would call it truth-telling, and honest journalism, but now we have some who want to call it “media bias.” That’s fine with me, but understand this.

“Media bias” may have just saved America .

And from Washington Post again, via Malkin, a lot of links at the original:

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.

All this bias has taken its toll… Even the Internet is more trusted than traditional media now! Same link has link to Time magazine admitting that 2008’s election media coverage was the most biased yet.

Obamedia Cartoons (More Than 50)

November 3, 08

Lots and lots of cartoons, links and examples illustrating the worship the mainstream media pours unto Obama at Obamedia Loves Obama… And I Mean Red Hot, Steaming Wet Lurve!!!.

Perfect timing, since the media is definitely going to skew the results of tomorrow’s US Presidential Election whatever the outcome (i.e. Glorious Obama demolishes McCain, or cheating McCain steals the election from Obama).

Some samples:








Could Obama Lose the Election Even Though He’s Ahead in the Polls?

October 31, 08

Check out the latest polling numbers (especially those polls not carried out by the Obamessiah-worshiping Obamedia).

From Gateway Pundit, note how Obama only has between a 3 to 6 percent lead if you ignore the slavering Lie-beral media results:

Notice anything odd yet predictable? The three polls done by MSM outlets are the outliers (outliars?). A coincidence? I don’t think so. It’s been like that for months. Now pull those out and do the math.

Obama and McCain are ‘functionally’ tied:

Despite widespread polling to the contrary, McInturff wrote that the campaign is functionally tied across the battleground states with our numbers improving sharply over the last four tracks.

As other public polls begin to show Sen. Obama dropping below 50 percent and the margin over McCain beginning to approach margin of error with a week left, all signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call by next Tuesday, he said.

And the lead Obama has over McCain might even be as low as a mere 2.8%:

So Obama is still ahead in basically all the polls (by very slightly, a negligible lead well within the margin of error for these kind of statistics). So much for that landslide walkover… But why do I conjecture that he might still lose?

Because historically, pre-election polls have been shown to be biased in favour of the Democrat candidate.

In 8 Presidential elections over 32 years, the polls have – without fail – overstated public support for the Democratic candidate. The margin of error has been by anywhere between 0 to 14.8 points, as compared to actual voting day results.

That means that Obama, with his mere 2.8 point lead, could be in for a loss as bad as 12 points behind McCain come actual voting day.

That was polling in general. For Obama specifically, polls overestimated Obama’s strength by 7% throughout this year.

The world may yet survive this American election.

UPDATE 1 NOV 2008: Wouldn’t you know it! On a tip from hutchrun, Zogby’s poll shows McCain ahead of Obama by one point!

Following from Day by Day:


Following from Day by Day:


Ann Coulter Researches the Pro-Democrat Poll Bias Through 8 Presidential Elections

October 22, 08

Think Barack Obama has McCain beat, based on the polling data which all say that Obama is leading by several points?

If so, you obviously must not know about the blatant and massive, documented pro-Obama and anti-Palin bias in the US media.

But besides that, history has proven that polls consistently favour the Democrat Presidential candidate, overstating support for the Democrats by wide margins of error.

The following is summarized from Ann Coulter’s article:

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

Jimmy Carter (D) vs Gerald Ford (R)
Poll predictions: Carter +15 over Ford
Election results: Carter +2.1 over Ford
Bias error: 12.9 points in favour of Democrats

Jimmy Carter (D) vs Ronald Reagan (R)
Poll predictions: Carter +3 over Reagan
Election results: Reagan +10 over Carter
Bias error: 13 points in favour of Democrats

Walter Mondale (D) vs Ronald Reagan (R)
Poll predictions: Reagan +4, +9 or +13 over Mondale
Election results: Reagan +18.8 over Mondale
Bias error: 14.8, 9.8 or 5.8 points in favour of Democrats

Michael Dukakis (D) vs George H.W. Bush (R)
Poll predictions: Bush +5 over Dukakis
Election results: Bush +7.8 over Dukakis
Bias error: 2.8 points in favour of Democrats

Bill Clinton (D) vs George H.W. Bush (R)
Poll predictions: Clinton +15 or +12 over Bush
Election results: Clinton +5.3 over Bush
Bias error: 9.7 or 6.7 points in favour of Democrats

Bill Clinton (D) vs Bob Dole (R)
Poll predictions: Clinton +22 over Dole
Election results: Clinton +9 over Dole
Bias error: 13 points in favour of Democrats

Al Gore (D) vs George W. Bush (R)
Poll predictions: Gore +6 over Bush
Election results: Bush over Gore by a slight margin
Bias error: 6 points in favour of Democrats

John Kerry (D) vs George W. Bush (R)
Poll predictions: Bush +1 to +3 over Kerry
Election results: Bush +2.4 over Kerry
Bias error: 1.4 points in favour of Democrats to 1.6 points in favour of Republicans

Barack Hussein Obama (D) vs John McCain (R)
Poll predictions: Obama over McCain, insert own imaginary number
Election results: Less than two weeks to go
Bias error: As always, in favour of Democrats

I guess the above history lesson might explain the cause behind Voxdays’ Five Point RuleIn general, if a Democrat leads by less than five points in the polls, he loses.

The Politico confirms it:

Respected polling analyst Mark Blumenthal found that during the Democratic primaries this year, preliminary exit polls overestimated Obama’s strength in 18 of 20 states, by an average error of 7 percentage points, based on leaked early results.

And while we’re on that note, take a look at some of the more objective (read: Non-Obama-leg-tingling) polls.

Such as this one where Obama has but ameasly 2.8-point lead over McCain.


UPDATE 2012: Okay, so Obama won in 2008.

See also via AoSHQ, from Powerline:


UPDATE: The media does this on purpose, to discourage voters from even voting. See also via AoSHQ this piece on How Carter Beat Reagan (not a typo!).

And the Obama campaign might try this for 2012.

Here might be what’s happenng too – editors fudge results, the Shy Tory Factor, and a version of The Bradley Effect.

Diversity Lane: Anti-Obama Biased MSM Helping McCain

October 16, 08


Kudos to Zack Rawsthorne of Diversity Lane for sending this one to me for bloggage. See more of his cartoons featured at this post.

He’s being sarcastic with content of the cartoon, and I’m being sarcastic with the title of this post, of course. The Mainstream Media is obviously and heavily leaning towards Obama in particular and the Left in general.

See Obamedia Loves Obama… And I Mean Red Hot, Steaming Wet Lurve!!! for proof of the media Obama leanings.

See the 113 pluses cases of Blatant Anti-Palin Bias in the Liberal Media for proof of how anti-Right the MSM is.

And see a flashback of the MSM’s liberal leaning lies at Mainstream Media Dishonesty – 101 Liberal Media Lies.

Yet, the reality-deluded Moonbats can still convince themselves that there is no Liberal Media… Despite the fact that the MSM is itself populated almost entirely by liberals (except for FOX).

The Lying King – Liberal Media Spread the Lies About Palin

September 16, 08

Now this is a cool video found at Moonbattery! It aptly decribes the Obama-worshpping liberal media’s unholy crusade to bring down Sarah Palin by whatever dishonest and dishonourable means possible.

See it embedded at Moonbattery or at Overstream or lower resolution at Youtube.

Screen capture previews:


Obamedia Loves Obama… And I Mean Red Hot, Steaming Wet Lurve!!!

July 24, 08

From John McCain’s website come two videos. The first is about the liberal media’s obsession with Obama…

Version 1 which is more popular by far:

Version 2:

And the second is about Obama’s shallowness of celebrity:

Also being covered by Michelle Malkin and Moonbattery. Chris Matthews’ leg reference in depth here.

What, don’t think it’s true?

The Washington Posts has to admit it.

Half of the people already realize it:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win…. Just 24% believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

Democrats — 37% say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. 27% believe most reporters are trying to help Obama. 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.

Republicans – 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama. 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

Unaffiliated voters – 50% see a pro-Obama bias, 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure.

50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions.. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.

From Commentary Magazine:

One gets to sense that journalists not only like Mr. Obama; they are in awe of him. They want to impress him and please him and are afraid of being rebuked by him… All of this helps explain why Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high in 2012, with 60 percent saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.

More confirmation here.

This is concurrent with the New York Times running Obama’s feature but refusing McCain’s rebuttal.

And then there’s this expose from Investor’s Business Daily:

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

I’m suuuuuuuuuuure this will not in any way affect their journalistic neutrality, objectivity and integrity.

And this on a tip from hutchrun, from Harold Evans, former editor of the Times of London and the Sunday Times:

Researchers at the Project for Excellence in Journalism report that in the six weeks since the Republican convention, McCain, once the darling of the media, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. Meanwhile, Obama got twice as many positive stories as McCain. The website Politico has also acknowledged that it had loaded the dice against McCain: 100 stories were more favourable to Obama than McCain; just 69 were the opposite.

And also these cases of reporters drooling over Obama at the gym, swooning over his lack of sweat, ogling their eyes out, watching him body surf and just plain freaking out to touch him.

And if a network doesn’t fall heads-over-heels for Obama… Then they are immediately booted from Obama’s plane:

Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain have been booted from Barack Obama’s campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race.

The Washington Times reported Friday that it was notified of the Obama campaign’s decision Thursday evening — even though the paper has covered Obama from the start.

Executive Editor John Solomon told that the Obama campaign said it didn’t have enough seats on the plane, but “I don’t think the explanation makes sense to us.”

“We’ve been traveling since 2007 with him. … We’re a relevant newspaper — every day we break news,” Solomon said. “And to suddenly be kicked off the plane for people who haven’t covered it as aggressively or thoroughly as we are … it sort of feels unfair.”

And they must be racist too. Video at Moonbattery.

All this bias has taken its toll… Even the Internet is more trusted than traditional media now!

But what can we hapless citizenry do, but vote against the brainwashing zombification… And mock!

President Obama Cartoon

President Obama Cartoon

Above two from President Barack Obama – Four More Years!

Next one from Day by Day:

Following from Day by Day:

The reason for the above snubbing the wounded troops? His media wasn’t allowed along, thus denying him the solely-important photo ops. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Minister of the Interior did visit the wounded American troops.

Following from Day by Day:







Following from Baloo Cartoons:


Following from Baloo Cartoons:
















Following from The Ryskind Sketchbook:


Following from Baloo Cartoons:


Following six are from a series of strips from Day by Day:


















Following from Day by Day:




Following from Day by Day:


Following from Diversity Lane:


Obama Bunch

See also Obama’s Unsavoury Bunch Cartoons.



Sarah Palin cartoon

Via Michelle Malkin:

Following from Pushing the Envelope:

See also more mockery of the Obamesiah/Obamedia World Tour at Michelle Malkin. A small selection:

Following from Day by Day:

And via Moonbattery:

And an uncanny prophecy of the Obamarrogance by The Ryskind Sketchbook:

Because Obama is travelling around the world not as an ambassador for America, but as an ambassador for himself:



And his egoisticism doesn’t end there… Via Michelle Malkin and Hot Air, from CBS News: