What's funny to me is this newspaper article I read today said that Obama's speech today in Germany was one of the most anticipated in U.S. History.
Is not this type of coverage a bit over the top? They -- the media -- seem to treat Obama like he is the second coming of Christ.
The media noted that flags were cut out of cardboard so the crowd had something to wave at Obama.
Of course, it would make sense that opinion of Obama in Germany, and the rest of the world as well -- including the radical Muslims -- would be high on Obama, considering his plans to calm down the Arrogant America. He has a vision of the New World Order.
Two-hundred thousand Europeans showed up to listen to Obama because they think he supports them in their view that America is to blame for much of what ails the world today.
Obama wants to decrease the military, decrease our military mite around the world, which would bode well for radical nations around the world who don't want America "bullying" them around, and other nations who don't want to see America "bullying" the rest of the world.
With a diminished American military, one with no defense weapons in space (which Obama pledges to stop), we won't be able to defend ourselves against a nuclear attack, making America more vulnerable.
However blind they are that a more vulnerable America makes it far easier for Iran and North Korea to get its way. Maybe even provides an opportunity for them to build up their nuclear programs (without the United States knowing about it.)
Obama wants to raise our taxes, both in the name of government programs intended to "help" the poor, but also in the name of global warming or climate change. Obama actually thinks he's doing something good by all of this, but other nations are eager to watch as all this government results in a sputtering American economy, which brings the "arrogant" America more on par with the rest of the world.
This is not necessarily my opinion, but the opinion I think a good portion of the rest of the world has toward America, and Obama. Not all of the rest of the world, but at least enough to garnish excitement about attending an Obama speech with as much "anticipation" as the Germans did for this speech.
And I don't know if the media is trying to pull one over on the American voter here, but I do know this: A large number of American voters know what the media is up to, as evidenced by a new Fox News Poll showing Obama has lost 2 points to McCain in the past week, and is now only up by 1 point.
They know that the American media will do whatever it takes to muster up sales, and right now Obama is good for sales far more than McCain, as evidenced by the one reporter available when McCain got off a plane the other day.
You'd think they'd pretend to be non-bias for one day and have at least 2 reporters on McCain. Or at least one magazine cover with McCain on it. When I went to the library the other day, Obama was on the cover of six magazines, McCain zero.
So, while McCain trudges forward, the media has turned a blind eye to him and is drumming up enthusiasm toward Obama, particularly now that the rest of the world is all hyped up about him. But an intelligent America is not buying into the hype, as polls show.
The neatest thing of all about the "anticipation" and "love" of the rest of the world for Barack Hussein Obama is: They don't get a vote.
4 comments:
There’s too much crazy in your post for me to address in a single response, so let’s just take a couple of the easiest ones:
Obama wants to decrease the military, decrease our military mite (sic) around the world, which would bode well for radical nations around the world who don't want America "bullying" them around…
You don’t point to any evidence that would support your statement about any kind of military “decrease” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), which tells me that this is just some kind of vague opinion of yours. Your rhetoric seems designed to generate some kind of fear, and equates “more” (money, weapons, uniformed personnel, etc.) with “better.” I’ll leave that for more qualified analysts to argue.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “radical” nations, and I can’t imagine that any nation wants to be “bullied.”
Similarly, it would be helpful if you: a) defined bullying behavior as it applies to international relations, and b) took an objective and dispassionate view of post-civil war American foreign policy, or in the actions of other countries during the 20th century to see what might qualify as such.
…other nations are eager to watch as all this government results in a sputtering American economy…
So, you’re arguing that other countries want the U.S. to fail, economically? What about our biggest bond holders (Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.)? Do you think they want to take a bath on their loans?
And since the U.S. economy is still the largest in the world, by far, and since it’s so heavily driven by consumer spending, are you really saying that the economies that depend on us to buy their stuff want us to fail?
That’s just plain stupid.
A large number of American voters know what the media is up to, as evidenced by a new Fox News Poll…
I wouldn’t trust Fox “news” to report the current weather if they were broadcasting from an open field, so citing some survey of theirs that depends on self-selected respondents is, well, pretty weak. I guess an introductory course in statistics is not required to be a respiratory therapist.
I do agree with you that the traditional corporate media depends on a couple of tired narratives to drive their “reporting,” including the notion of a tight horse race that’s just too close to call up until the final moments. No drama, no ratings.
Heaven forbid that they focus on issues, or on the candidates’ records and positions. That’s too much work, and I don’t know of any celebrities who could actually do it.
McCain’s running one of the worst campaigns ever, which is to be expected from one of the worst candidates to come around in a long, long time, while Obama just keeps running like Secretariat.
I’ve got money down on a serious blowout across the board this November.
You are right, rightwingsnarkle, I did not provide evidence. I was more or less making a facecious take on the Obama hype.
Consider this paragraph in my post:
"This is not necessarily my opinion, but the opinion I think a good portion of the rest of the world has toward America, and Obama. Not all of the rest of the world, but at least enough to garnish excitement about attending an Obama speech with as much "anticipation" as the Germans did for this speech.
Regarding polls, I cited Fox's poll because it was the most recent.
Consider the following:
In Minesota Obama's lead has gone down from a 17 point lead to 2. In Michigan Obama's lead has gone down to where McCain is within the margin of error. The same is true of Minnesota.
And, we must not forget, in 1988, Dukakas had a 30 point lead at this time in the election cycle. However, Obama is a far better communicator than Dukakas.
Thus, I think it's not a good idea for the media to be giving all their attention to one candidate, when there is another one out there.
As you may know from my own comments and posts, I am fascinated with media coverage of the candidates. McCain is getting smashed on coverage and often for good reason. He presents nothing new. He presents little opportunity at a scandal. While the media has an ethical responsibility to be as fair as possible, I do think they are trying. They have covered Obama's good points and his bad points. They even covered their own coverage of Obama and ironically criticized it. The Germany story was less about Germany and more about the coverage of Germany. They are covering themselves! McCain can't compete with that nonsense.
Post a Comment