Jim Nolte makes some good points in this piece, particularly this one:

To Chris Matthews, Detroit equals a particular skin color; a failed city equals a skin color that’s not his own. Why?

Detroit’s problems have nothing to do with race and everything to do with failed government.

Matthews equating a failed city to a particular skin color is not only perpetuating the very worst kind of racist stereotype, it’s factually wrong. Anytime Chris or Joan want to come out to Los Angeles, I’d be happy to take them on a tour of Ladera Heights (drinks and dinner on me — bring Ebert!). Maybe a good hard look at the “Black Beverly Hills” will convince these “progressives” that “failed city” doesn’t equal “Black city.”

Nothing reveals more about someone’s character more than how they behave in a desperate situation, and in their desperation to protect Obama, we are learning a lot about the likes of David Gregory, Joan Walsh, and Chris Matthews.

Are these examples signs of racism, paternal racism, colonial “we have to protect our poor black inferiors” brand of racism? Perhaps, but whenever dealing with humans you won’t go too wrong going with the stupidity explanation first. The stupidity that is illustrated by the title of this unrelated post at Althouse:

“Have you ever had a thought on the topic of race that isn’t set generations into the past? Have you ever thought about the future?”

That is the bottom line for the left and the MSM, they live in an eternal 1955 only with Republicans in the role of democrats. They will never get over it because many of them, in my opinion, believe they are not talented enough or worked hard enough to deserve what they have, and frankly many of them might just be right.

I woke up at 4:30 this morning (no Willie I don’t know why) and caught the end of a re-peat of Meet the press. What did I find? the MSM Psy-ops is still in progress.

When discussing the Huckabee decision the panel considered two factors, on the “likeability” front they gave Tim Pawlenty the explicit advantage. Then they mentioned his strength among Christian Conservatives and said such candidates appealing to that demographic might gain from his departure, but didn’t name any names.

Really, the media panel hasn’t heard of any Christian conservatives who might be running? Maybe I can help them. Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann ring a bell? Oh and perhaps you might have heard of some woman by the name of Palin, I’ve heard she has sold a book or two over the years.

Perhaps they must all be Politico readers because in their story on Huck’s decision I noticed they gave the conservative candidates the short shift.

In a thirty-two paragraph story here is what they had to say:

Several strategists predicted that grassroots conservative activists — drawn to Huckabee’s seat-of-his-pants, outsider campaign — would take a good look at Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

That’s paragraph 12 are they mentioned again in one sentence in paragraph 22 like so:

Republicans there said that, without the defending caucus-winner in the race, it was now anybody’s game. Pawlenty, who has been working the state hard, could get a fresh look, along with Bachmann, Cain and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

That’s it. Two sentences in a three page story. Meanwhile John (I have absolutely no prayer of winning the Nomination but don’t tell the MSM that) Huntsman gets this:

South Carolinians pointed to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as candidates who could benefit there from Huckabee’s withdrawal. Huntsman already has Richard Quinn, a South Carolina strategist who also flirted with Huckabee, working for him, and could stand to pick up more of the Arkansan’s admirers.

“I would very seriously consider [Huntsman’s] candidacy,” said former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, suggesting that Huntsman could capture voters who were drawn to Huckabee’s sheer newness on the national stage. “When Jon expressed an interest in running it definitely caught my attention because he might be just the fresh face on the field that’s needed at this time in the Republican primary process.”

Somehow the Politico also manages to leave out it there is any effect on a certain former Alaska governor. Meet the Press and the Politico feeds Morning Joe we can be almost certain that we won’t see much if any of the names, Palin, Cain or Bachmann this morning.

We shall see if they join the operation this morning, as Rush has said, the MSM will tell you who they fear and these omissions speak volumes.

In Time Magazine Mark Halperin handicaps the 2012 republican nomination. Forgetting that there is no actual scientific way to measure these things there are three points I’d like to note:

1. The Mike Huckabee announcement automatically makes this graphic obsolete.

2. Assuming his bookmaking is correct (it’s not) If the odds of Mitt Romney’s nomination are 3-1 that means there is one chance in three that he will win the nomination, conversely that means there are 2 chances in 3 that he will not. Michael Graham will be pleased.

3. Any chart that shows Jon Huntsman in the top 5 (now top four) republicans to win the nomination is not to be taken seriously.

These points concerning the latest attempt to spin this election are all important, but the most important points concern who is missing from this chart and who is at the bottom of the list. Open up the Graphic in another tab and look at it again.

Rule one in the MSM is strong republican women have to be marginalized or mocked and ridiculed. Note that the strong republican woman on the list are put at the very bottom. This is highly necessary, we can’t have anyone thinking that the GOP might be thinking of nominating a woman let alone a strong one.

Note also that the more conservative the candidate, the farther down the list. Can’t suggest that a conservative might win the nomination, have to discourage that kind of thought.

And finally note who isn’t even included, the Republican candidate who has made the most splash lately in campaigning and in debates. Herman Cain! We don’t dare mention Cain, or show Cain or give any odds on Cain. What would the readers of Time Magazine or the viewers of Morning Joe say if the it was admitted that a Black Republican, who unlike the current president has an actual record of accomplishing things before he ran, is a GOP base favorite? It would not only mess up the template but it would bring out the racists on the democratic side who would populate the comment sections of these stories with cries of “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” etc etc etc. Can’t let the public see democrats for what they are.

The bottom line, this graphic and these odds are simply a democratic wet dream, it has the same purpose as this tweet I saw this morning:

Yet another declaration of GOP impotence. What is it for, to try to convince the GOP and the base that we can’t win. With President Obama at the top of their ticket their best chance for victory is to demoralize us because they don’t have a record of success to run on and the one signature success this crowd has managed invokes memories not only of another president but of policies that they abhor.

This is all Psi-ops and bluff, considering the realities that’s all they have. Our best response?


Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

Update: Stacy Links and tweets and says:

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits.

Don’t fall for the Psi-ops.

Update: Et Tu Fox?

You’ve likely already heard about the terror arrests in NY.

Two men arrested in relation to an alleged terror plot in New York City were of Moroccan and Algerian descent, FOX News reported Thursday.
Moroccan Mohammad Mamdouh and Algerian Ahmed Serhani were arrested late Wednesday and were expected to be charged under the state’s terrorism laws

So if you read the Other McCain you would know who the suspects were and their cultural nationality. How about HotAir?

Two Americans of North African descent have been arrested, apparently on charges that they plotted a terrorist attack on at least one New York City synagogue:

Yup you know that if you read Hot Air, how about Pam Geller?

More Muslims planning to blow up Jewish houses of worship. The media describes them of “Algerian descent” — no mention of Islamic Jew-hatred and the motivation that drives this war on the West. The media dares not speak its name.

Not only does Pam inform us, but she hits the nail on the head. If your only source for this news was the AP report linked at Stacy’s site that is what you would have heard.

Authorities in NY have arrested a pair of men allegedly plotting a terror attack against a Synagogue in the city.

Go back to Stacy’s site and listen to the whole thing, You will notice that the names of the men and their nationality is never mentioned.

When listening to WCRN today while driving I noticed the same thing. I heard the CBS news report on the story, never once were the names of the suspect mentioned. That’s when I knew they were Muslims.

It’s the religious version of the “Name that Party” game.

Guys if you don’t want to actually tell us the news, please find another line of work.

Israpundit had an interesting report on Sarah Palin in Denver concerning the use of force by the US:

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

Pretty significant set of policy opinions. I’m sure the media with an election coming up decided to examine it carefully.

Well not quite, instead they decided to focus on something much more important:

Sarah Palin gave passing praise to President Obama’s “decisive leadership” in the operation to kill Osama bin Laden, though in a speech here Monday night the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate did not once use Obama’s name.

“We want to thank our president,” Palin said, but then she quickly shifted focus to the previous administration for having laid the groundwork.

Some on the left don’t even give her that much credit:

However, making a specific point not to mention President Obama (and, yes, it must have been a specific point. I doubt she and her speech writers just forgot his name) was a bad move. It’s just a distraction.

Of course we must assume the left believes that when she says “The President” she must mean Jefferson Davis.

Now as John Notle points out, the MSM doesn’t want to focus on the substance when it comes to Sarah, can’t paint Palin as a dunce that way, so they invent a meme. Why? Remember the Golden Palin rule.

watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.

Thus forget the policy stuff, let’s re-define what she means by “The President.”

The MSM will tell you who they fear.

Update: Instalanche, thanks much.

Update 2: Put update 1 in the right place, and Linking Ann Althouse who looks at Huff Po’s latest “gotta” moment and notes:

Those White House Correspondents’ Dinner “attendees” who “had no problem coming up with answers” were journalists giving laughably self-interested answers like “my boss, Arianna Huffington.” And there were plenty of attendees who couldn’t come up with an answer or who changed the question to “my favorite journalist.”

(Ask me who the most influential law professor is, and my answer will say something about me as I decide to promote my own school, suck up to some particular individual, highlight somebody obscure, or drivel about how there are so many wonderful law professors.)

Don’t go looking for the Palin Doctrine list there, after all Ariana doesn’t pay them for that.

Saturday April 23rd on DaTechGuy on DaRadio my guest is John Nolte Editor in Chief of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood and contributor to Andrew’s other sites such as Big Journalism.

We will be talking the Wonkette mess, #trigscrew and the media’s reaction (or non-reaction) to that and the Palin speech.

As always you can listen to us live at the WCRN website, and we welcome your calls at 508-438-0965

and remember you can e-mail your comments to the show here

And remember we have the Wesley and Weston report at 6 a.m. Conservatively speaking at 7 a.m. and Carol Ann Brown at 9 and the now resurgent Red Sox with the pregame starting at 8 p.m. so keep that dial right on WCRN all day Saturday.

Update: Bob Belvedere has been confirmed as a call-in guest for our 2nd hour panel YOWSA!

Oh and don’t forget Next week Join me at Linguini’s Italian Eatery at 1 p.m for a post show lunch and round table featuring YOU.

Update: BTW if you aren’t familiar with the Trig story check out this great piece by Susannah Fleetwood who NAILS it:

Every liberal entertainer, professor and pundit that most liberals respect call Republicans “teabaggers” and “racists”, say horrific things about Sarah Palin, and even spread internet rumors about her son not being hers, or her husband sleeping with her daughter (and yes, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are both mainstream liberal figures–they are not the fringe). Therefore, many of them don’t know anybody who thinks that this is unacceptable behavior, so they assume that “everyone is doing it” or would approve of it.

Bazinga!

There are several things that went missing while I did some laundry at the Wonkette page.

If you go to the main page and scroll down you will see this:

Now you might not be able to make out that screen shot so I’ll zoom in on the right corner:

It lists the most popular viewed post, I think it is no surprise which post that would be. However if you click on that link:

Presto it is gone.

You can expect the “most popular” link to disappear shortly as well, but one more interesting thing is already missing. Last night there was a top banner ad that rotated with many different national advertisers. That banner ad is now gone.

I submit that if Ken Layne had done his job like an editor, as opposed to like a person with Palin derangement syndrome the banner ads would still be there.

Oh BTW now that people can’t actually see the post, you may find that the MSM decide it’s now safe for them to report on it since.

1. The damage to Wonkette’s advertising is already done so withholding coverage doesn’t protect their bottom line.
2. If a person goes to the site they can’t find the actual article so the damage to the left is decreased.

If case you are such a person you can find a cache here. You can find the full timeline in Dana Loesch’s posts at Big Journalism.

Oh BTW just to be clear: Wonkette had a first amendment right to put up the piece, the members of #trigscrew had the first amendment right to complain to advertisers, the advertisers had the 1st amendment right to not support speech that hurt their business, Wonkette has the right to boycott of Papa Johns, and we have the right to laugh hysterically at them trying that.

Update: Took less than an hour:

and it its place when you click on the link (which still shows the same title) it goes to the following statement:

A post on this page satirizing Sarah Palin using her baby as a political prop was very badly done and sounded like the author was mocking the child and not just Sarah Palin/Sarah Palin’s followers.

The writer, Jack Stuef, has apologized for it. And we have decided to remove the post as requested by some people who have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, but who do have an interest in the cause of special needs children. We apologize for the poor comedic judgment.

It’s proper form to accept people’s word when it is given, but I suspect that their sorrow reflects their regret of their poor economic judgment more than their comedic judgment.

Let’s set the table. Major public figure, best-selling author, former VP candidate for national party and possible presidential candidate in 2012 has Down Syndrome Child. Said Down Syndrome Child is attacked on his birthday by prominent leftist site that has appeared on Morning Joe, CNN, etc.

Prominent people on both sides of the Aisle condemn it, editor defends, then slightly backs off, then blames Major Public figure for encouraging sleazy behavior in her children (such as fighting in Iraq?). This is followed up by a twitter campaign targeting advertisers. In less than 24 hours major advertisers such as Papa Johns, Huggies, Nordstrum and Vanguard pull their ads and a twitter campaign exists to pressure others to leave. Said grass-roots campaign is thanked directly by said public figure. Site then scrubs author’s name from site and deletes hundreds of comments from readers encouraging the attacks on the child. Author then follows up with an update saying he “regrets” post but blames parents for their “use” of their child.

One might think that would be a story, and it likely would be if the major public figure was named Clinton or Obama and the web site involved was conservative.

Alas, the public figure is Sarah Palin and the Web Site is Wonkette. This makes it a twofer. It portrays the left in a poor light for a start and any such story might create sympathy for her at a time when the Republican Nomination is up in the air. So starting with Morning Joe and continuing with all the MSM’s morning shows this has become a non-story. Not even a scroll at the bottom of the screen.

Yesterday Dave Weigel answered a post of mine concerning Palin coverage saying in part this:

But here’s a scoop: Few speeches get covered the way politicians would like them to be covered.

That’s a fair point concerning Palin’s Wisconsin speech, it doesn’t explain the non coverage for drowning out 14-year-old girls and a reverend giving an invocation or assaulting old ladies at tea party events, and it certainly doesn’t explain why this kind of story that portrays the left poorly is ignored by the major media.

And this is why Ace and Hotair are wrong. If we don’t link and tell this story the MSM will pretend it never happened and the invisible left will remain invisible.

Yesterday the story was the actions of one lefty site going to far. Today’s non-coverage transforms it into a story of the journalistic (journo-listic?) malpractice as the mainstream media shields the left.

Update: It just hit me, do you remember when Governor Palin mispronounced “skirmish”? I recall Morning Joe finding time to play that video, much more newsworthy than this, isn’t it?

Update 2: Stacy Gives away the game.

Decent Americans recoil in shock at the latest eruption of Palin Derangment Syndrome

…and that’s exactly why the MSM will do their best to make sure decent Americans don’t find out.

Last week I had two posts about how the very effective Sarah Palin speech was totally ignored on air by the MSM saying in part:

Why has there been so little on the air about this? For the same reason why you will not see the full clip of Palin’s speech embedded in MSM sites or why there was no commentary this weekend. Watching the actions of the left tend to cause people to dislike them while watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.

and

media Bias is mostly made up of sins of omission

Well Dave Weigel (a nice enough guy in person BTW) is now covering the question of coverage but with a twist to fit the media template:

But is it a mystery or sign of bias when an author and former vice presidential candidate gives a speech at a rally and it doesn’t get national news coverage? Mansour, Nolte et al know that conservatives have all the access they want to Palin’s speechemphasis mine, through live-streaming and other videos. It doesn’t matter whether the media covers it.

Two lines on the page give away the game:

First the Title: Pay Attention to Sarah Palin!. This is pejorative, suggesting Palin is desperate for coverage and attention and thus unworthy of it. The title allows Weigel to portray Palin as irrelevant dismissing a major speech in the Madison the central national battlefield of state budget battles.

Next the key quote: Take a look at this sentence from his piece conservatives have all the access they want to Palin’s speech. Exactly! Why would any non-conservative be interested in what Sarah Palin says? There is no need to report what she says to non-conservatives, they don’t need to know.

And lets note what the story doesn’t contain, no embed or link to his MSNBC comments that he refers to, no link or embed to the videos of the Palin speech that the discussion is about. Normally such links would be a given in such a piece, but they’re not here. Why not? Remember the quote from the top again:

watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.

Mr. Weigel is read by people on the left and independents, to include these links would defeat the purpose of the article (Mocking Palin and her supporters) rather than inform them of what she actually said or did. Thus he Mattie Fein‘s her, turning the story of an effective speech in a key battleground state into a story of her supporters as petulant children, fitting the MSM/Journolist approved template.

This is more evidence to me that Sarah Palin is not only a viable candidate, but that the media still (as Rush has suggested) fear her. People who are paying $4+ a gallon for gas and lining up to get jobs at McDonalds are looking for strong leaders. The last thing the MSM wants to do is highlight one.
Update: Weigel very politely responds, a peek:

Well, I linked the entire video of Palin’s speech earlier in the week. (He’s right the link is here dtg), It was newsy insofar as any speech by a potential 2012 candidate is newsy. But here’s a scoop: Few speeches get covered the way politicians would like them to be covered. The White House spent a good bit of time putting together a deficit reduction speech last week. What do you remember from it? You probably remember that it looked like Joe Biden was asleep for part of it. Why was Palin’s “target map” a bigger story than her speech? The shootings in Tucson overwhelmed all other news, Palin was unfairly wrenched into the story, and Palin — and Rebecca Mansour — responded in a sort of odd way to this. (Mansour, you’ll recall, told Tammy Bruce that the targets on the map were originally “surveyor’s symbols.”)

Now myself I would have included the link to the earlier post and mentioned said coverage, the lack of it made me assume (incorrectly) that it hadn’t been covered, but I stand corrected on that point.

Yesterday I spent the day after the show at the Border Restaurant in Leominster and followed that up with a trip to McCoy stadium to see the PawSox play this evening so I missed most of the Tea Party events.

Having knowledge and access to blog that does not hinder my ability to find out what happened in places like Madison Wisconsin yesterday.

First there is the video of Breitbart’s into:and then Palin’s SpeechBoth via the right scoop:

And if you prefer a transcript Governor Palin provides that too.

Then you have write ups such as John Nolte’s at Big Government:

If Sarah Palin’s not running for president, what a terrible waste that would be of the single best stump speech I’ve heard since, well, Palin’s ’08 convention speech, which just happened to be the single most electrifying political moment of my adult life. A thrill didn’t just run up my leg that night, it ran up everything in me that’s American, and today in Madison, WI, it happened again.

You have Jim Hoff updating, Sissy Willis reminding of her tactics. William Jacobson reminds us her targets are not confined to democrats, Nice Deb opines and Dan Riehl notes the following about leadership:

As I said to a friend and colleague tonight, wherever the current battle is, that’s very often where you can find Palin. One of the first requirements for leadership is to show up out front. No one will ever accuse Palin of not doing that. Doing so also has an interesting side benefit for any would be leader. When you lead, people tend to follow and support you, even if not at first.

There has been some media coverage at Reuters and Politico however there is one aspect of the story that they seemed to miss. The Left’s Reaction. For that we have Jim Hoff and Big Government.

And for other non-Wisconsin issues of the left we have the Blaze for Oregon and IC Arizona for Arizona.

Why has there been so little on the air about this? For the same reason why you will not see the full clip of Palin’s speech embedded in MSM sites or why there was no commentary this weekend. Watching the actions of the left tend to cause people to dislike them while watching Palin in context tends to make people like her.

This is why “Ann Althouse” has become a dirty word for the left because she objectively looked at the happenings in Madison and said this

There is incessant ringing of cowbells. Then, we can hear that a young woman is speaking from the stage to the Tea Party crowd as the protesters do what they can to drown her out. She finishes — “God bless America” — and the tea partiers cheer but the protesters overwhelm them with boos. The emcee comes to the mike and we hear that the speaker was only 14 years old.

ADDED: One of the chants during her speech is “Go home! Go home! Go home!”

and this :

But today was distinctive because it was a Tea Party rally, and many people wanted to hear the speakers, especially Sarah Palin. The counter-protesters were there to drown out those speakers. Their earlier anti-Walker protests were about how they wanted to be heard. Over the last 2 months, the anti-Walker protesters have said many times — often directly to me or Meade — that they felt the GOP governor and legislators had the obligation to listen to them, that it was terribly wrong for their voices to be excluded, and that dialogue is the essence of democracy. They made a godawful noise saying that (and more), but what they did today was hypocritical, because today they showed up for the express purpose of denying other people the right to listen. So today was loud and angry, but it was nowhere near as loud and angry as it has been on other days. Nevertheless, today was bad in a different way, a way that betrayed values the anti-Walker protesters had voiced many, many times.

And remember this was written while saying things weren’t as bad as Breitbart thought.

You will see no quoting of Althouse tomorrow on the air, nor will you hear Elizabeth Scalia either:

can you imagine the hissy-fit the press would have if a tea party crowd had tried to drown out a speech by anyone? They’d say it was “downright unAmerican,” and they’d be right.

Put Sarah Palin’s speech next to Barack’s Obama’s, and forget about their policies for a second; just watch and listen. Which one do you believe? Who is transparent and clear and who is obfuscating and duplicitous? Who is natural, and who is affected? Who spends more time saying “I” and “Me” and who says “Us” and “We”?

That comparison is necessary for the American People to make an informed comparison between the two directions this country can be taken, and for that reason alone, the media, the left and the establishment GOP will do their best to prevent it.

Update: Two great examples: Who are you going to believe, CBS or your own eyes in Wisconsin and in Boston Union folk disrupt a prayer,

These are not the actions of people winning the debate, and remember this is Massachusetts where their allies overwhelmingly control the government. If they are that insecure here what does that tell you?