The latest campaign dispatch from Newsweek fawns over Barack Obama and smears Republicans enough to provoke a response from John McCain canpaign adviser Mark Salter (an e-mail which the mag chose to reproduce as an Adobe Acrobat document; no bias there):
…The characterization of Republican presidential campaigns as nothing more than attack machines that use 527s and other means to smear opponents strikes us as pretty offensive. Is that how Ronald Reagan won two terms? Do they really think other Republican presidential candidates were elected because they ran dirtier campaigns than their opponents? Or could it be that they were better candidates or ran better campaigns or maybe more voters agreed with their position on important issues? From the beginning of their article, Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe offered a biased implication that Republicans have won elections and will try to win this one simply by tearing down through disreputable means their opponents. You can see why many Republicans and voters and our campaign might take issue with that.
Suggesting that that we can expect a whispering campaign from the McCain campaign or the Republican Party about Senator Obama’s race and the false charge that he is a Muslim is scurrilous. Has John McCain ever campaigned that way? On the contrary, he has on numerous occasions denounced tactics offensive tactics from campaigns, 527s and others, both Democratic and Republican. By the way, which party had more 527 and other independent expenditure ads made on its behalf in 2004? It wasn’t us.
By accepting the Obama campaign construct as if it were objective, Evan and Richard framed this race exactly as Senator Obama wants it to be framed – every issue that raises doubts about his policy views and judgment is part of a smear campaign intended to distract voters from the real issues at stake in the election, and, thus, illegitimate…
Of course they did. Four years ago, Evan Thomas famously commented:
Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win… They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there’s going to be this glow about them… that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.
Perhaps Team McCain has somehow deluded itself into thinking that the good coverage McCain got as the alternative to George W. Bush in 2000 will be repeated this year, all evidence to the contrary.
For example, Salter is peeved at Newsweek’s coverage of recent dust-up between Obama and John McCain over Hamas, but the New York Times gave even more distorted coverage of the dispute yesterday, in a story which included this passage about Obama’s Illinois campaigns:
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama hewed closely to liberal orthodoxy, positions that have become controversial in the presidential race. A candidate questionnaire from one liberal group, for instance, detailed his views on hot-button issues like the death penalty (opposed) and a ban on handguns (in favor).
Today, Mr. Obama espouses more centrist views and says a campaign aide had incorrectly characterized his views on those issues  a shift that does not sit well with some in the group, the Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization [IVI-IPO].
“We certainly thought those were his positions,†said David Igasaki, the group’s chairman, who noted Mr. Obama had also interviewed with the group. “We understand that people change their views. But it sort of bothers me that he doesn’t acknowledge that. He tries to say that was never his view.â€Â
In any event, the group endorsed Mr. Obama, and he was easily elected to the State Senate in 1996.
The NYT could not be bothered to report that Obama’s handwriting appears on an amended version of the questionnaire, making his account of the dispute transparently laughable. The NYT is also allowing Obama’s campaign to claim that Obama never said he would meet “unconditionally†with Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, when he said he would on national television, on his own website and in the pages of the NYT. Contrast this with the paper’s series of lame attacks on McCain (as though there was not ample legit criticism to be raised against Maverick) to get a picture of what the general election holds for McCain’s media coverage.
More generally, McCain has not gotten net positive coverage from the broadcast nets and newsweeklies since the final week of March. He has received net positive coverage in only four weeks since February 11th. In contrast, during the same period, Obama received net negative coverage in only four weeks. The establishment media remains silent when Obama distorts McCain’s comments on Iraq and the economy, or talks about visiting 57 states, choosing instead to lob softball after softball to Obama. Most telling, most of the establishment media adopts whatever spin Obama chooses to put on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, even though Obama’s claims that he was ignorant of Wright’s controversial sermons are also transparently laughable.
As a candidate seemingly headed toward public welfare financing and a greater reliance on free or “earned†media, McCain had better shake off the highway hypnosis of the campaign trail long enough to realize that, having helped the liberals’ favorite Republican the nomination, the establishment media will now focus on getting liberals’ favorite Democrat the presidency.  Instead, the McCain campaign seems shocked to discover that they will get no credit for denouncing groups running ads about the Rev. Wright. The straight-talk express will likely be run off the road by the double-talk express, but the press will report it as an accident at best.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Romney needs to run as the ANWR Party candidate. POKE ALASKA!
sorry. That should have been bolded.
POKE ALASKA!
McCain is old, and stop picking on O.
There. Now that we’ve gotten those two chestnuts out of the way …
And, how many weeks in a row can Time mag somehow feature Omessiah on their cover? He’s on it again this week (last week it was his and hill’s mug together, before that it was him in his mom’s arms …)
This week, the caption – on the cover- reads “And the winner is …”
I count Five O-Time covers since January alone. Another very flattering photo of him in December. McCain’s got ONE cover.
It is blatantly racist to questiion his experience and judgment.
I’d guess there’s some Hillary people canceling their subscriptions. Time Warner really shouldn’t be alienating their liberal base at the same time people are rejecting their crappy Speed Racer mainstream schlock. Dumbasses.
I say good luck to those Hill-backers, HP, I’ve tried to cancel my subscription twice. It didn’t take.
Better Half once thought that since I follow politics, I would enjoy a subscription to US News and World Report and Time. I think they are still sending me that stuff trying to get her to re-subscribe.
Ohnoes. Now Time Warner is bitter and clingy.
McCain (and a couple other RINOs/CINOs) like Grassley and Spector need to figure out the only reason the media boosts them, is that they set themselves up as political machetes to scythe down the values and the movement that they allegedly represent. Once a RINO/CINO has outlived their usefulness (e.g. they come into conflict with a Dem candidate, or stand up for conservative or Republican positions) the media has no more use for them than a used facial tissue, and will treat them accordingly. It baffles me that Republican staffers, supposed political professionals, can be so stupid as to not realize this. But then it shouldn’t surprise me, in light of the fact that the McCain campaign had to fire two senior staffers over the weekend, for having worked for a lobbying firm that greased palms on behalf of the Burmese (“Myanmar”) government. Pretty hard to be credible as an anti-torture, conservative civil liberties advocate when your senior staff were part of an enterprise selling a torturing, left wing military police state. Apparently, if you’re dumb enough to think that you can get away with that, you’re dumb enough to think the NY Times and the rest of the MSM won’t do you dirty come election time. [Multiple Headslaps]
Specter and Grassley mostly are wondering how the hell they’re gonna to get their cheesey venal not long for this world asses into Heaven. I doubt they read the papers no more.
oh. *gonna get* I mean. For serious our politics are a lot mired by graspy geezer people what are gonna cling to power til the bitter end. Faster, please I think.
The most surprising this about this is that Salter seems truly surprised that the media is completely in the bag for Baracky, or any other Dem. All those years of being the Maverick Republican will be for naught when his opponent is no longer Republicans.
I’m almost starting to feel bad for Salter. He doesn’t seem to know who he’s working for.
The “Republican” part of that doesn’t mean to them what it does to you.
Say you’re a dedicated 7-11 customer, a partisan of certain characteristics of the store that you regard as essential — the lone brown hot dog on the little greasy ferris wheel, or whatever — and for some reason you find cause to complain to a 7-11 employee about a failure to match your brand-expectations. If your criticism is that he’s thinking like a Super America employee, he won’t even know what the hell you’re talking about. He’s not in the 7-11 business. He works at a convenience store. He doesn’t care which one it is.
Salter seems like an exception, lately. If he doesn’t calm down, he’s gonna get fired.
Not enough umlauts in English for ya, eh, Reichwinger?
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAetc.
I see the MSM reporters have gotten their new and improved Monica kneepads for covering the runup to the Obama coronation.
Newsweek openly campaigning for the Dem candidate? A given. Not surprising anymore, just part of the political landscape.
The only thing that should surprise Salter is that they did not let Axelrod write the story himself.
–“…they did not let Axelrod write the story himself.
– What makes you think he didn’t?
– The Lefty press has been given their marching orders. Go forth and try to torpedo the Reps main arrows aimed at Obamarama. Yhey have a hell of a problem, or rather set of problems, hence you’ll see a non-stop “The republicans steal electuons, wage dirty politics to win, and are just basically evil people that you shouldn’t even think about voting for unless (reciting all the truthiness you won’t hear a single Dem mention, except maybe some bitter Hill-Rod backers):
1) You think we should drill for lots of oil to break the ME cartels strabglrhold on the US oil market.
2) You think America should act like a real sovoreign country, and really control its borders and ebforce the immigration laws, and jail any Mayor that decides to offer criminals sanctuary.
3) You don’t think killing a fetus should br a glib choice based on responsibility avoidence, or because it will hamper your life style.
4) You hate war just as vehemenbtly as the next guy, but you brlieve in fighting for the survival of your family and your country.
5) You’re not in a hurry to elect a man who was born a Muslim in the eyes of Islam, is backed by terrorists that he can’t wait to surrender to by leaving Iraq to a mass genocide with his tail betweeb his legs, belongs to a radical Black seperist church, Is chums with another guy who likes to bomb things to make political points, and even today is proud of it and doesn’t think he did enough, has zero experience, and thinks that the White middle class are all a bunch of fly-over rednecks.
– Time needs to get busy.
I may be slow, but what’s the bias in using Acrobat? Or was that tongue-in-cheek?
People don’t a lot click for a stupid pdf cause it can make stuff hang and really do you really care *that* much? Most people don’t. They figure if it was that important they would have put it on the web page.
I think a lot of casual readers prefer to avoid PDF docs, mainly because they’re the sort to use Adobe Reader to read them, and that gives those people’s underpowered and overinstalled PCs a headache for hours or even days afterward.
Hell, even on my overpowered and streamlined PC I avoid using Adobe Reader, and am hesitant to click a PDF link even then.
I use foxit reader for pdfs. Free, tiny, fast.
wow, so I’m not the only one that hates PDFs? I thought it was just a vista thing, guess not.
Acrobat? Mine just totally disappeared after I tried to “update”.
The ipcc went to pdf for the AR4, while the TAR was easily accessable in html, which makes me suspicious. Plus, my “reader” couldn’t download it.
[…] Protein Wisdom – The straight-talk express vs. the double-talk express [Karl] […]
[…] as “young and dynamic and optimistic” and put “this glow about them”. Karl from Protein Wisdom and Robert McCain have ought to say about Newsweek’s shameless tongue bath and excerpt […]
John McCain. If he is so naive about the press and his coverage, is he safe to have in the White House?
I’ve been using it for months, but my anti-PDF habit is proving hard to break.
wow, so I’m not the only one that hates PDFs? I thought it was just a vista thing, guess not.
They lock up my Vista every time I try to download one. I’m going to try this foxit thing.
lemme know how it works out, B Moe. I’m afraid to try new things.