The Media Is Not Biased For Obama

I've been hearing a lot of complaints this week that the networks and major newspapers are biased in favor of Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain. Cited as particular evidence of this bias is the fact that all three network news anchors went along on Barack Obama's international travels.

Some network apologists have said this is not evidence of bias at all. They do admit, though, that it is unprecedented coverage for a presidential candidate. They say Obama's trip is being covered in a manner more like a presidential trip.

These statements are wrong. The networks and the major newspapers are not giving Obama's trip "presidential trip coverage." Presidential trips don't get this kind of coverage. The three network anchors didn't go on trips with any of our presidents. At most, they sent senior reporters.

But the fact that Charles Gibson, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric all went with Barack Obama on his photo op tour doesn't mean they're biased. They're not biased — they're part of Obama's campaign staff.

Obama vs. the Generals

President George Bush has taken a huge amount of heat for “not listening to the generals.” So how come presidential wanna-be Barack Obama is getting a pass when he says what General Petraeus and others say doesn't matter, and that he's going to pursue his withdrawal strategy regardless of what the military experts say? And he says, knowing that the surge has worked, he'd still vote against it.

Separately, a “senior Obama advisor” speaking on background (so he wouldn't be named and publicly embarrassed) said of Obama's upcoming Berlin speech “It is not going to be a political speech.” He went on to say “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.” It was left to a reporter to point out “But he is not president of the United States.” (Let me guess — that reporter was not from the New York Times or any of the three major networks.)

I think both of these incidents speak volumes about the arrogance and assumptions of the Obama campaign. As I heard this afternoon, perhaps President Obama's advisors should check in with the people advising President Dewey. They might get some good pointers.

Pelosi: One of FARC's Friends

The Colombian government and armed forces tricked the Communist guerillas of FARC into giving up their highest value hostages, including a former Colombian presidential candidate and three Americans, to a fictitious human rights organization. Apparently the easiest part of the plan was getting the FARC terrorists to believe a human rights organization would cooperate with them. As noted,

There are a couple of other interesting things that have turned up in the information about this rescue, and about the information culled from the computers captured in the March raid that killed FARC leader Raúl Reyes. One is that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is actively supporting FARC's efforts to take over the government of the neighboring country (Colombia), giving large amounts of money to the terror group and assisting them in obtaining weapons which are shipped through his (Chavez') ports, all the while pretending to be trying to mediate the conflict between the FARC and Colombia.

Another interesting thing is who is helping Hugo Chavez undermine Colombia. Three names stand out. One is Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, currently under investigation for her ties to FARC. And working with Cordoba and Chavez in the mediation scheme were the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and her designated representative Congressman Jim McGovern.

So the question is this: Is Nancy Pelosi knowingly and deliberately cooperating with Communist insurgent groups and dictators, or is her judgment "more than a little misguided"? And is this related to her intransigence on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement?

And the more general follow-up questions: Why the support for the Communist insurgents and dictators against democratic countries and governments? Again. Is this the kind of leadership we, as a country, want to support?

Playground Bullies

Robert Reich gave an interview to New York Times Magazine. At the end of the published interview is this exchange:

Reich: I was bullied a lot when I was a kid. I was actually beat up because I was little. People frequently tell me in interviews that they were bullied as children. But no one ever steps forward and says, “I was the bully.” They don’t want to admit to being a bully.

Interviewer: What do you think playground bullies grow up to be?

Reich: Right-wing Republicans.

With all due respect, Reich can see in his own Berkeley back yard that the bullies are consistently the left-wing Democrats — and not just the ones from Code Pink. And it's not just in Berkeley, either. It's the left that demands special treatment, that shouts down those they don't agree with, that damage property and attack police — and then pretend to be the victims.

My primary reaction to Reich's claim is to ask, in the best "church lady" voice, "Can you say projection?"