Why it's getting harder to listen to the Media

I get it, the media believe this campaign is about Obama and they feel that it's their duty to make sure "regular American citizens ("RACs") knows as much as they can about the presumed democratic nominee. Since I'm an RACs I can write regarding this subject with a certain amount of honesty.

Being the RACs I can state as a fact that the media does not observe reporting from the perspective of the RACs. We are very tired of the constant negative messages regarding Obama that we receive on a daily basis. Granted some of the media will spend a few minutes giving the RACs some positives reporting about Obama but you can bet it will be countered by either a positive message about McCain's (irregardless of whether he deserve such coverage of praise) or a negative report about Obama. Yet the RACs can always bank on receiving a good 75 to 80% positive coverage of McCain never being followed up by any negative, unless it's against Obama.

Most times when McCain commits a faux pas, gaffe, misstatement or just out right lies the only reporting we receive as an answer for these stumbles, campaign growing pains, or out right lies is that McCain is being McCain. Are they blind or just playing stupid? The media totally misses the point that the RACs is not buying that bulls**t. We are not stupid or blind and can easily see the disparity between the reporting of these two candidates. The RACs would very much appreciate being treated like adults and not listening to someone of the media play with our intelligence.

The best way to illustrate how bias the media has been is to point out some of their recent disparities in their lopsided reporting.

• When McCain offered (or prentended to offer, the jury is out on this vote) his wife to participate in the Buffalo Chip contest the vast majority of the medias response was to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. That's all good and well, but McCain is the same man who call his wife a c**t and is the same man that do not believe in a woman's right to make a choice on abortion, as well as the same man that does not believe women deserve equal pay. Just what benefit of the doubt are we suppose to give McCain? The RCAs knows where he stands on woman's issues (not those RACs who are female that have given over their right to be independent versus being subjugated by a male counterpart). His offering his wife to participate in a contest that would expose her to being stripped of her dignity does not seem like such a reach to pander for votes. After all, he does not respect women in other right.

Now let's examine what the headlines would have been had Obama, for the sake of votes, offered his wife to participant in the same event. The headlines would have been screaming to the RACs about how Obama had no family values; how Obama had no respect for his wife; or, better yet, how low would Obama would go to win this election (which would play in to Obama's lack of patronism). Double standard? You know it.

• Obama just released his new energy plan, which received raves from environmentalist for it's progressive stance. On the same day McCain campaign picked up on the advise that Obama offered a response to a RAC about how the RAC could help. All of a sudden the suggestion (which was not his energy plan) became the butt of McCain's bash Obama joke. Let's not stop there though. What Obama suggested (which was to keep air in your tires) was true. Did the media report that the ridicule coming from the Republicans and McCain was not true? Hell no (get use to this comment since I will be saying it constantly). Not until the ridicule had ran it's course. Did Obama's energy plan get pushed into the media's attention. Hell no.

• When McCain visited a nuclear plant that had a history of almost having a melt-down (and is currently close) to advocate his point of pushing for creating more nuclear plants, even though he is more than vague on where we are suppose to put the waste, did the media report that fact. Hell no.

• When McCain put out the infamous "celebrity" ad that depicted Obama as an empty glory seeking non-star celebrity the media said it was fun and cute. Yet within that same period of time after some pundits, reporters, statesmen and RACs noted that the ad really had racial undertones to it (not that McCain is a racist, but his campaign wants it out there so that those so called white voters that Obama supposedly need will understand that Obama is not one of them) and Obama later made a statement about the true fact that the republicans would say he was a risk, looked funny and didn't look like one of the presidents on our dollar bill, McCain's camp and McCain pushed out the story that Obama was playing the race card. We can all agree Obama has no choice but to play the race card every day...He's Black! Some in the media wrote articles about how Obama was doing just that, playing the race card. They never stopped and said, "gee, I wonder where he got that idea from." Maybe from McCain's web site that had a video of Obama being superimposed over Mt. Rushmore, Statue of Liberty and $100 dollar bill (although McCain has removed the evidence from his web site, thank goodness for YouTube ). Did the media ever pick up on this morsel of truth? Hell no.
  

• Still ,on the point of the "celebrity ad," when Paris Hilton responded to the ad McCain put out portraying her as an empty headed star-wanna-be-celebrity, and she came out with her own ad (which was very cute) laced with plenty of insults toward McCain the media reported the story simply as "McCain enjoyed it." The RACs wants to know who the h*ll cares? The election is not about Ms. Hilton or McCain's indulgence in this juvenile conversation. why isn't the media asking why the RACs is being subjected to this sideshow while we have real problems going on with our economy. Had this been Obama the headlines would be screaming in regards to his descent into distracting conversation with an air head. Why is McCain constantly getting a free pass for these ridiculous antics?.

My list of injustices by the media over reporting actual facts when it concerns to McCain could go on and on (which I admit probably will over the course of the next 90 days). But I will bring this article to close by simply stating an honest fact: HEY MEDIA GET IT RIGHT. THE RACs WANT THE TRUTH. No more with the white washing of McCain's lack of a real plan. No more playing into McCain's (or more to the point right wing talking points) campaign of distraction. Until then I will be like other RACs and just put you on pause, lower the volume, or turn the channel.

This message does not include (Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty or Rachel Maddow as part of the media Obama bashing machine).

A Leader or a Puppet?

As I've been comparing President Bush to the presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, it has become some what glaringly clear that they are similar in too many ways, which makes me feel that McCain winning the election will not bode well for the growth of America. I've done this comparison because I really feel that we are heading in the same path by electing McCain. Why? Well because most people agree that Bush was not the force behind the destruction of America even though he is taking the blame. He just isn't smart enough. Plenty of people agree that Bush was not smart enough. Hum...neither is McCain for that matter. That begs for the question that needs an answer: if McCain wins who will really be running the government? Big Business, again? The neocons? The religious right? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? Or will it be just a joint effort by all of them?

Let's put the ducks in a row and compare President Bush and McCain on several factors with the intent of finding the difference:

1. Educational accomplishments,
2. policies,
3. campaign tactics, and
   
4. speaking capabilities

Let's look at Bush's and McCain's records shall we:

Bush received a C during his tenure at Yale and McCain was 5th from the bottom of his class that had over 800 students during his tenure at the U.S. Naval Academy. It seems they are pretty equal in the educational department.

Overall McCain has voted 95% FOR Bush's policies and in 2007 McCain voted 100% FOR Bush's policies. In fact McCain plans to keep most of Bush's failed policies and give the oil companies and big business more cuts and Tax Breaks. As Glenn Grernwald puts it:

"John McCain delivered what was billed as a "major foreign policy" speech and today, David Brooks gushed that it was "as personal, nuanced and ambitious a speech as any made by a presidential candidate this year." In particular, Brooks said that the speech demonstrates just how different McCain's foreign policy approach is from that of Bush/Cheney: "Anybody who thinks McCain is merely continuing the Bush agenda is not paying attention." The reality is exactly the opposite. Thematically, rhetorically and substantively, McCain's speech, particularly as it concerned the Middle East, was essentially a replica of the speech George Bush has been giving for the last seven years. It trumpeted virtually every tenet of the neoconservative faith: to be safe, the U.S. must slay tyranny around the world, spread democracy, bring freedom to the grateful peoples of the Middle East so they turn towards us and away from the Terrorists, using "more than military force"

As well as Think Progress puts it:

"McCain’s speech last week represented a feeble attempt to distance himself from Bush, something his top surrogate acknowledges is futile. Strangely enough, McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said recently that Obama’s economic polices, not McCain’s, would represent a third Bush term (a claim ultra-conservative Robert Novak even found absurd).

But the simple fact is that Graham is right. McCain is proposing massive tax cuts that primarily benefit higher-income households, ignore other priorities and drive up the national debt by trillions. And McCain’s health care policy would raise costs and abandon the uninsured. That sure sounds like an “extension” and “enhancement” of Bush’s policies."

Just like his predecessor McCain has embarked in running a campaign lacking integrity and substance when it comes to using ads. As Bush had in 2004 against Kerry with the use of the infamous swift boat mudslingers, McCain has his campaign running mudslinging ads as well (the only differences is that Bush was not the one slinging the mud, McCain must have felt that it would be better to cut the middle man out of the picture). The Wall Street Journal writes:

"John McCain has edged toward more negative ads lately – a strategy he took in his previous presidential bid and one that “has been and may still be problematic - if not disastrous,” writes The Huffington Post’s Thomas B. Edsall. “For McCain, negative ads have by and large been poorly conceived and minimally effective. In 2000, his decision to go negative against George W. Bush was a crucial factor in McCain’s eventual defeat.” For those who don’t remember, McCain compared Bush to Bill Clinton, which was “at that moment, beyond the pale,” Edsall notes."

For the final comparison let's just let the visuals do the job:





Enough said, another puppet waiting to get in the White House.