Tom and Jerry: Defenders of All Things Right and Good

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Congratulations To Senator Obama On Winning The Presidential Election

The success of his campaign truly illustrates something we've been told as a child about our great nation: That anyone can grow up to be president. All you need is ambition, determination, and the willingness to....

** break your pledge to not accept private donations so that you can outspend your opponent 6 to 1 with money obtained from dubious sources

** have a compliant and subservient national media applying maximum scrutiny to (and even fabricating stories about) your opponent while sweeping any of your skeletons, gaffes, and glaringly ridiculous propositions under the rug

** promise a mathematically impossible tax-and-redistribution plan designed to turn the election into 4 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner

** employ an ethically-challenged "grass-roots" organization to sign up voters who might otherwise miss out on the opportunity to vote for you, such as 2nd graders, dead people, cartoon characters, etc.

...and any millionaire with little-to-no experience or accomplishments can pander to enough people to get elected.


Is this a great country, or what?

Labels: ,

10 Comments:

  • Don't forget about Arizona.

    By Blogger Tom, at Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:35:00 PM  

  • McCain should be used to having stories about him fabricated--Bush did the same thing in 2000. I'm just sayin'...

    By Blogger elf, at Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:39:00 PM  

  • Hilarious. After "swift-boating" the last election to ensure the election of a draft-dodger over a veteran, the Republicans are in no place to talk about excessive 3rd party money in campaigns. They were just beaten at the game they normally play best.

    The real lesson here is that the Democrats learned a lot in defeat. And rather than being sore losers, the GOP ought to hire a proctologist, pull its head out of its posterior, and figure out the people still want and demand fiscal conservatism. They (and me) just don't believe that the current incarnation of the GOP can deliver it.

    And quit blaming the media. If anything, they were complicit in covering up the outright criminal behavior of the current administration ... this election should not have even been as close as it was.

    By Anonymous Matt, at Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:38:00 PM  

  • "they were complicit in covering up the outright criminal behavior of the current administration.."

    I see you couldn't resist the "Bush is a criminal" charge, even going into moonbat territory to claim that the media has been covering for him. Yes, that dangerous right-leaning mainstream media that exists only in liberal fantasies.

    And, yes, Republicans can talk about "excessive 3rd party money" when the opposition broke his pledge not to accept it. That, coupled with the Obama campaign's removal of any source verification processes from their donation acceptence, makes their "3rd party money" acceptance stink to high heaven.

    And as to your "swift-boating" charge, I couldn't care less about what John Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam. The army gave him medals for it, so that's good enough for me. However, his unverified - and, in a number of instances, outright false - accusations against U.S. soldiers in Vietnam that he made in his "Winter Soldier" testimony were nothing short of reprehensible.

    By Blogger Jerry, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:03:00 AM  

  • Regarding the criminal behavior of the Bush administration: There is ample evidence that in the prosecution of the "War on Terror" that corruption and cronyism played a huge role in awarding billions of dollars to companies intertwined with the administration. Cheney's continued profiteering from Halliburton stock is only the most visible example.

    And the press is complicit in covering this up because they can no longer stand up to the bias charges that have systematically destroyed the 4th estate over the last 20 years. It's more a crime of omission than commission, but it's still there.

    Finally, don't assume that people are always on the same side - liberal or conservative. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and I have been disgusted with the results. That's why I swung to the other side in this election ... and the Republicans richly deserved their fate this year.

    By Anonymous Matt, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:50:00 AM  

  • "the bias charges that have systematically destroyed the 4th estate over the last 20 years."

    So it's really the charges of bias (which you implicitly deny are present, or at the very least, deny are substantial), and not the actual, blatant, outright bias displayed by the media, that have destroyed the 4th estate? That's a good one. I suppose you'll say that it was the folks who charged Tyrone Willingham with being incompetent, as opposed to his actual demonstrated incompetence, that are responsible for his being fired (twice).

    And if you really think that the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. would sit on credible charges of criminal activity by the Bush administration out of fear of being labeled 'biased', then you have been reading the DailyKos too much. The MSM certainly didn't back off their on their swooning over Obama throughout the entire primary and general election season, even after it got so blatant that even Saturday Night Live did a skit parodying the media's love affair with (and total lack of objectivity toward) him. If you really think these MSM outlets are covering for Bush, well, I'll have some of what you're drinking. I need it after another ND loss.....

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.....

    By Blogger Jerry, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:19:00 PM  

  • With regards to media bias, here is the best perspective I have read on it in a long time.

    http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12510893

    We get The Economist. And, quite bluntly, everyone should.

    By Anonymous Matt, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:58:00 PM  

  • Matt:

    The link you provided was cut off and therefore did not work, but I do read the Economist (it's online version), and agree it is a good resource. However, I also remember reading this a few days ago in the Economist:

    The state of the economy was surely Mr McCain’s biggest problem, but he was also doomed by two other factors. The first was the impossibility of appealing to both Republican activists and independent voters. Mr McCain needed both groups to win: the activists because they do the hard work in elections and the independents because self-identified Democrats outnumber self-identified Republicans by about ten points. But, as a Democracy Corps poll revealed last month, today’s Republican activists live in a different mental world from the rest of the electorate: a world in which Mrs Palin was a good choice, in which their candidate has been too mealy-mouthed in making his case, and in which the Republican Party needs to move to the right to win elections.

    The second was media bias. A survey for the Pew Centre’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that, in the six weeks between the conventions and the last debate, unfavourable stories about Mr McCain outnumbered favourable ones by more than three to one. When Mr McCain tried to focus on “non-Republican” issues such as poverty, the media all but ignored him; when Mr. Obama broke his pledge to restrict himself to public financing, the media tut-tutted at first, but quickly moved on. One need only imagine how the New York Times would have reacted if a Republican candidate had broken such a pledge, and then gone on to amass a war chest of $639m to his opponent’s $360m, to see how profound the bias has been.


    http://www.economist.com/
    world/unitedstates/
    displaystory.cfm?story_id=12560505

    Perhaps this nugget from an article in the Economist about Obama's European jaunt in July escaped you also:

    Mr Obama’s progress has been making the McCain campaign look even more flat-footed than usual. Mr McCain added to the misery this week by making another in a long list of foreign-policy slips of the tongue by referring to the “Iraq-Pakistan border”. And a campaign ad blaming Mr Obama for the rising price of oil was met with widespread ridicule. The McCainiacs have resorted to lashing out at the media’s liberal bias: a complaint which is perfectly justified. Even before three news anchors accompanied Mr. Obama on his trip, the networks had devoted twice as much coverage to the Democrat as the Republican and much the same is true of newspaper column-inches. But it is the complaint of defeated conservative campaigns the world over.

    http://www.economist.com/
    world/unitedstates/
    displaystory.cfm?story_id=11791461

    The mainstream media tilted left for quite a long time, but in the last couple of decades, the number of media that describe themselves as liberal have grown to outnumber those that describe themselves as conservative by about a 10-1 ratio, and they have voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last 6 national elections. With the ascendency of Obama, the media bias in the past election cycle has been impossible to deny.

    By Blogger Jerry, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:27:00 PM  

  • Matt,

    The media bias in favor of Obama is well documented in The Economist. Some media tilts conservative, but far more tilts liberal.

    Do you honestly believe that if the New York Times, the LA Times or MSNBC had hard evidence about criminal activity in the Bush administration that they would sit on it?

    The New York Times had no problem calling Rove and Cheney monsters. Yes, the left-leaning media gets accused of bias from the Right, just like Fox News gets accused of bias from the Left.

    Do you have such a low opinion of the New York Times and MSNBC to believe they would shirk their journalistic duties out of fear of being called biased? If they had real evidence, then they could report it without fear of being accused of bias, because the evidence would exonerate them. Furthermore, imagine the ratings they could earn by breaking such a story. They are in the business of profits after all. Your idea that the press would sit on such evidence stretches credulity.

    By Blogger Tom, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:42:00 PM  

  • Matt,

    I agree with you. Everyone should get The Economist.

    By Blogger Tom, at Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home