The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

White House Reporter: We took sides against Palin in the election, straight & simple.

Posted by iusbvision on July 13, 2009

Statements from White House reporter and AOL Daily reporter Carl Cannon via the MRC:

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don’t know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I’m not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn’t hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.

From the beginning, and for the ensuing 10 months, the coverage of this governor consisted of a steamy stew of cultural elitism and partisanship. The overt sexism of some male commentators wasn’t countered, as one might have expected, by their female counterparts. Women columnists turned on Sarah Palin rather quickly. A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described “hockey mom” with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy — that wasn’t the woman journalism’s reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary.

Cannon went on to catalogue just some of Biden’s mistakes:

Sen. Biden, however, was in a place by himself when it came to bogus claims, absurd contentions, and flights of rhetorical fancy. He threw out several assertions that were so preposterous that – had Palin made them – they would have prompted immediate calls for McCain to dump her from the ticket.

The good senator from Delaware warmed up slowly, erroneously claiming that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution, and asserting wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. He also embarked on an appallingly wrongheaded monologue about the constitutional history of the vice presidency. But when the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden’s purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid.

• “John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported,” Biden stated. (Actually, in a 1999 vote in Congress, McCain sided with 50 other Republicans to kill the treaty. Only four joined the Democrats.)

• “Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons,” Biden said. “Pakistan’s weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean.” (Pakistan has no known intercontinental missiles. The range of its weapons is thought to be 1,000 miles – halfway to Israel.)

• “When we kicked — along with France — we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t…Hezbollah will control it.'” Biden recalled. “Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” (Except that the U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon or anywhere else. They’ve been entrenched in Lebanon since 1982. Actually, Hezbollah, insofar as it was responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing at the Marine barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen, kicked America out of Lebanon, not the other way around.)

• “The president…insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, ‘Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.’ What happened? Hamas won,” Biden said. (Only the last two words of Biden’s strange soliloquy are true. The rest are false. For one thing, Fatah controls the West Bank. Biden was thinking of Gaza. Secondly, neither Biden nor Obama predicted the 2006 victory for Hamas in Gaza’s legislative elections. Third, McCain and Obama – but not Biden — signed a letter urging the president to pressure Palestinians to require that candidates adhere to democratic principles before being allowed to run for office. Fourth, Biden served as an election observer and later wrote an article expressing high praise for Bush’s actions. To sum up: One factual error and three fibs in only 31 words. Pretty impressive, in its way.)

• “With Afghanistan, facts matter…we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan. Let me say that again…” (He did say it again, but that didn’t make it true. It’s wildly and weirdly off the mark. Yes, facts matter. The facts here were that at the time Biden was speaking, the U.S. had spent $172 billion in Afghanistan. The Iraq War consumes between $7 billion and $8 billion every three weeks. Biden’s math was off by 2,000 percent.)

• “Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say (he’d) sit down with Ahmadinejad.” (He most certainly did. And among those who criticized him at the time for it was Joe Biden, who told Byron York of National Review that the idea of a president meeting with the likes of the Iranian president or Hugo Chavez was “naVve.”)

UPDATE: Ann Coulter on Cannan’s comments:

5 Responses to “White House Reporter: We took sides against Palin in the election, straight & simple.”

  1. Angelo said

    It’s great to see an analysis of the facts and to have a new perspective on a ‘goes without saying’ matter such as media bias. If I might include an observation of mine concerning the Palin/Biden debate: all I (who was more focused on the media representation of Palin and the existence of sexism than political processes) can remember was Palin’s words, “…ups and downs…” I thought to myself, “Wow, that’s like cutting yourself in a shark tank.” With all the pornographically promoted inculcations of repression and expression of sexuality, especially for the MILF and interracial genres, I immediately speculated on the detrimental aspects of the intonation of Palin’s words. I know this observation may appear sexist or perverse but I intend it to serve as an example of the apparent inability to completely divorce the carnal nature of the voter(s) from their political insight. Also, it may appear as though I am trying to blame Palin for not being more aware of a pre-existing gender [and political] bias, and indeed I feel she should have been a little more cautious, but I am not intending to excuse any wrongdoing or misguided intentions on the part of the voter, the media, or society.

  2. Angelo said

    Correction: Actually the quote I referenced did not occur during the Palin/Biden vice presidential debate. I just reviewed the full video and I’m thinking those words must have been spoken before the debate. I [think I] remember now that I probably saw a portion of Palin’s speech wherin she said those words and then I was compelled to watch the debate. Again, in the debate I remember being taken by surprise by Palin’s giggly, juvenile demeanor and mannerisms that seemed as unwelcome on a woman of her age and status as for any politician. It seemed as though she was laughing at a joke the whole time and was trying to let everyone else in on what was so funny but the message never got thru. My intention is still to provide constructive criticism.

    [Either that or she was just nervous because it was her first time in front of a national audience. – Editor]

  3. Angelo said

    Also, I am not itending to persuade anyone that anyone other than B.H. Obama will be president in 2012. Yet, the existence of Palin’s mannerisms, tenor, and demeanor allow for an allegation that she [sub-consciously] ‘threw’ the election either for a personal motive of wanting more time with her family or a political motive of wanting to run for president and not being ‘type-cast’ as V.P. In my opinion, if Palin does run for president in 2012 and she continues with unfruitful behavior it will be more difficult to justify her actions in the event that Obama is re-elected. Again, in my opinion, she would inevitably appear to be a ‘Judas horse’ that corralled voters under Obama.

    I thought about that too, but those mannerisms would have to have been part of her repertoire to come out in a time of anxiety. It was kind of like watching a drunk who is aloof and then sternly serious for moments. It really accentuated her inexperience and made her, who otherwise seems sincere in her motives, difficult to take seriously. You know how models always say, “if you put your drink down don’t drink from it again?” Her speech kind of reminded me of that.

    [That is a huge assumption to make based off of a couple of mannerisms that you didnt like. It is too bad that people dont make choices on policy decisions other than “hmm I dont like the way she winked”… it is no wornder Obama is President, but reality is already catching up with him.

    A gallup poll indicates that 43% of Americans would be likely to vote for Palin for president. Considering the smear job the elite media has done on her she has a great approval rating. If she runs a good campaign she can certainly win the election based on these numbers. That is exactly the reason they are attacking her. – Editor]

  4. Angelo said

    I don’t understand why you sometimes misrepresent my opinions by either indicating that I don’t discredit them enough or do not state that they are my opinion thoroughly enough. Honestly, I think that I failed to insert my opinion at the end of the sentence with ‘allegation’ in it but that is my point– if it is in a post with my name on it and is an opinion it is therefore my opinion. This is not the first time you have neglected to post some of my comments on whatever ground you have which I now understand may include some mistaken notion that by discriminating against my religious views you will get Palin elected. Consider that even when, in another post, I submitted a disclaimer to indicate that you were not allowing me to fully explain my position–especially in regard to your remarks– you do not allow that either. And you constantly point out discrimination, bias, and slander in other people but don’t consider it in yourself. Perhaps you have yet to undrstand that my stating that Obama is to be re-elected is a religious and not a political motivated statement. Consider the case of Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon. When the whole world was placed under his authority many people did not like it, but that was the will of God, and political resistance was futile. Nevertheless, I don’t think you understand either the nature of discipline and the effect of and necessity for constructive criticism. Please consider the following scripture excerpt for 1 Kings 20:35-43(KJV):
    “And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him. Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him. So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.”

    Now, I am not citing this scripture to promote domestic violence or violence against women, but to show that effective discipline– in this case pointing out some interpretably unproductive mannerisms and the implications that might follow them– is sometimes more desirable than [pseudo-] respect that is couched in rebellion.

    I apologize if I have offended you but I am concerned that you do not always understand me– and this may be due to an incomplete attempt to express myself– and that because of your misunderstanding me some of my posts are not submitted and the representation of my views is thereby impaired.

    Also, the graphic nature of the Biblical reference is not necessarily intended to parallel with any political figures or scenarios; but is used as it is the only Biblical example illustrating the point I am trying to make: that sometimes being too blindly loyal to someone does not benefit the one to whom the ‘loyalty’ is being shown, the one showing the loyalty, or the ones to whom the one being shown loyalty is in care of.

    [I have just been critted by a massive wall of text….

    You have not offended me. I have a thick skin and I am not easily offended. I have been offended by professionals.

    And of course I do not always understand you. The reason is that most people speak and/or listen in “codespeak”. This means that you have a set of assumptions and references in your cultural backround that acts as a subtext for your statements here. Since I do not know you there is no way that I am going to read in or interpret/decode what you are saying with the same assumptions and/or cultural back ground as you.

    So therefore the only thing I can do is take the raw text and come up with the best narrative that I can based on nothing more than the text in front of me.

    Ya get me ?

    I understand that you may think Obama will get re-elected because society has debased itself and you know as well as I do that people who have spiritual problem, problems with envy and other issues as our society does that this will lead them to make wrong decisions over and over again. And while there is a certain truth to that point of view, there is still a certain collective wisdom to the American people. This is why Obama and the Democrats approval numbers are dropping at record speed. The American people collectively can be fooled once, but it is hard to fool them twice in a short time. To say that the Democrats have overreached and gone nuts with the kickbacks and spending and corruption is indeed an understatement and I believe that the American people will punish them for it.

    It may also be your point of view that God is using Obama to punish the United States for a society that is moving away from his will and now the nation is being judged. On the other hand it was worse under Carter and then we got Ronald Reagan.

    One more thing Angelo, I don’t discriminate against your religious point of view. If I didnt like your religious views I would tell you that right here in plain text. – Editor]

  5. Angelo said

    “It is when you say things like that that sometimnes makes me believe that you are some kind of nut,” -Editor

    If I were to quote someone who said, “I am someone.” and I quoted them as saying, “I someone.” and not, “I […] someone.” I would be misleading people, wouldn’t I? My observation was that some of my posts were being left out or not submitted and you were winning arguments or getting the last word that way. Perhaps some of my replies violated the codes for them and that is why they were left out, I don’t know. I was actually surprised, and a little proud [of/for you], that you posted my comments in reply #4. But then I was dismayed by your allegations that I’m a nut and am making up the missing comments or something. As you can see in this post, the first portion of reply #3 came after the second portion in my initial writing and submitting it. And yesterday when I submitted reply #4 the now second portion of reply #3 was left out and it reminded me of other times when my replies had been left out only [this time] I couldn’t imagine another reason than simply you didn’t want to. But, I guess you were just waiting to consolidate them, but it’s like I had to fight for it and get stuck with some label in the end. Fine with me, if that’s how you wanna be [and are actually being that way]. Maybe I’m not getting something about the computer programs. It could be like when I sent someone an email and checked my ‘sent’ folder and it wasn’t there, so I sent it again and then both were there. And it’s not like I didn’t sign out and sign in again to check for the first one. So, sorry if I have implicated you in something you have not done due to a misunderstanding of mine. But, when I see a reply of mine that doesn’t get posted I will usually save a copy of it in my email with the ‘awaiting moderation’ and time stamp on it so that I can review your editing or confirm their deletions. I don’t like to waste time, mine, yours, or the reader’s. As for some personal motives that I’d like to impute to you are: that it’s better to be considerate than popular; that it’s better to be honest than right. I hope to help you improve your editorial and journalism skills with my feedback as well as communicating my views accurately to you and the reader(s).
    As for Obama’s popularity, I think it’s kind of like judging a marathon in the first few miles. It really wouldn’t be clear that he is going to win. I’m surprised you haven’t considered the effect of an Amreican war against Iran or considered that Obama’s perusal of Iran’s affairs are an attempt to surmise how effective intervention there would be at raising his popularity. After all, you have been writing in your posts about how Obama is an opportunist when it comes to crises. But I think my main opinion as to why Obama is president now and will be in the future is that people— even Republicans— desire, on at least some level, the things Obama offers them. And this would amount to, what I perceive to be, a cruel mix of oppression and denial on behalf of Americans, whom, in my opinion, often promote a greater sense of achievement than is verifiable. Also, I think Palin would be among the first to understand this and also among the first to more thoroughly apply herself to eradicating any uncertainty or ambivalence or lack of integrity in her own character.
    Or perhaps you have mistaken my faith for misanthropy or misogyny. Mostly, my conviction that Obama will be re-elected is based on a basic Christian principle: that Satan grants authority to whom he will and in accordance to their submission to him. I don’t think Palin has that initiative. So, barring Palin forfeiting her soul, I generally presume Obama will be re-elected. And it is not that Obama is neccesarily Satanic but that Divinely inspired punishment may be applicable since the Republican party was promoting the abortion of rape and incest children moreso than for others and that would be disrespectful to, not only those children, but also to some of God’s laws, in my opinion. Also, another cause necessitating discipline, might be the forcing of the stem cell research issue upon the voter for the sake of popularity. There was no longer any choice and the idea that forsaking integrity should lead to reward is anathema, or otherwise offensive, in my opinion.
    So, I guess you could say I didn’t really ‘feel’ that the Republicans were striving for victory this time as much as I would have liked, and the words, “Don’t blame me..” seemed to enshrine the wrong attitude after such a narrow defeat. Consider that when a Nascar racer loses a race there has to be a comprehensive investigation as to what went wrong— did the pit stops not go smoothly enough? was the driver hydrated/ rested enough? was there something wrong with the mechanics or aerodynamics of the car? — or else the preparation for the next race would be incomplete.

    About my religious views:
    I am not necessarily advocating pre-destination. In fact, that is something I don’t [necessarily] agree with. I know Revelation 13:10 sometimes referes to destiny as a method of selection but in Isaiah 65:11-12 there is a warning (in some translations) that the ones putting their faith in the god(s) of fate/fortune and destiny the one true God will destine to die [as punishment]. I missed that in the KJV but when I read another version it was clear in the Old Testament— apparently some words corresponded to pagan gods— and yet perverse, in my opinion, in the New Testament Revelation excerpt. Some people often site Jeremiah 15:2 and 43:11 as inculcating pre-destination but I believe it is important to bear in mind the lessons and teachings contained in the aforementioned Isaiah 65:11-12 and also the passage in Ezekiel (especially 9:4) that I cited in your open letter with Meghan McCain as these would help achieve a more comprehensive analysis of the impact and authority God may have in the life of an individual.

    Disclaimer:
    My remarks on Palin, Couric, Coulter and others are not necessarily intended as a reflection of my own personal views or a promotion of the parameters one should use for judging another, but rather as an analysis of the judgments that one might use to judge another for political purposes— which I was intending to argue are now becoming more corrupt and in accordance with the media promoted themes of sexism and violence against women.

    Correction to my comment in reply #4:
    “Now, I am not citing this scripture to promote domestic violence or violence against women, but to show that [constructive criticism and/or] effective discipline– in this case pointing out some interpretably unproductive mannerisms and the implications that might follow them– is sometimes more desirable than [pseudo-] respect that is couched in rebellion.”

    By the way: I know I’ve been posting a lot on this site recently and it’s been mostly an exercise in communication for me. I try to keep my posts informative and appropriate but it appears it is possible to be misrepresented.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: