Gay Patriot Header Image

Media Bias in Favor of Obama:
They Want to Cover an Historic Election

Study after study confirms what we in the “rightosphere” have long supposed (and what responsible journalists have reported): the media are biased in favor of Obama.  According to a recent report from the respected Center for Media and Public Affairs:

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain

The American people are beginning to take notice, with 70% believing most journalists want Obama to win.  Jennifer Rubin finds the media “has simply deferred to the Obama version of reality:”

Obama says he’s a reformer, so no use asking him why he didn’t challenge the Daley machine at any point. He says he couldn’t possibly support infanticide, so there’s no point of taking him through the specifics of his votes on the Born Alive Infants legislation. . . .  Obama’s such a post-partisan guy there really isn’t any point grilling him as to how he could be unaware of Reverend Wright’s rhetoric.

Wat explains this bias?  We’ve known for some time that more reporters lean left.  But, this year, the coverage seems especially skewed toward the Democrat.  With the declining power of the MSM, Jim Treacher thinks “they see this election as their last shot at making a difference.”  Glenn Reynolds agrees:

Their reputation and readership/viewership keep falling. And layoffs keep happening . . .  they’re willing to pull out all the stops because they realize this is the last election where they have a chance at swinging things. . . .  No point saving your credibility for the future when you don’t have a future

I think that’s part of it.  A big part of it.  But, there’s more to it than that.

Most mainstream reporters today are too young to have covered a truly historic movement against one of the ugliest spots in American history.  They missed the Civil Rights movement.  They want to cover a similar historic moment.  The election of our nation’s first black president would be just that.

Even though I don’t support Obama’s policies and have come to distrust his rhetoric, I do appreciate the symbolic impact of his election.  It seems many in the media have made that symbol the focus of their coverage.

Obama Promises Press Conference after the Election

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:30 pm - November 2, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

In a post this morning, Jennifer Rubin observes that we have more questions than answers about Barack Obama.  As the campaign winds down, the Democrat is trying run out the clock, not wanting to risk losing wavering supporters, hoping to still sway some undecided voters to move his way.

Now, we learn, via the indispensable Jake Tapper, that when asked how his Treasury Secretary, should he win on Tuesday, would handle the $700 billion set aside for a bailout of the financial industry, Obama promised a press conference on Wednesday, after the election.

Looks like this Democrat is not very forthcoming how he plans to lead the nation.

If Sarah Palin had dodged questions the way Obama does, the media would have a field day.  Ed Morrissey opines:

Remember when the media screeched over Sarah Palin’s lack of press availability after the convention?  Neither Obama nor Joe Biden have taken questions from the press in weeks.  If Palin’s fortnight of preparation somehow revealed her unreadiness for higher office, what does this say about Barack Obama?

Should Obama win and he governs as he has campaigned, he’ll be a lot more like George W. Bush than would John McCain.  He’ll hold the media at arm’s length.  But, so smitten are so many in the media with the Democrat that they’ll fail to see his flaws and continue their swoon, seeing his distance as a mark of distinction rather than disdain.

John McCain: A Better Man, a Lesser Candidate

Win or lose on Tuesday, John McCain has earned my respect.

While I may gnash my teeth at the difficulty he has had articulating a conservative message on the economy in this campaign, I look with admiration at the commitment he has demonstrated to his country and the tenacity he has shown on the hustings.  And the humor he has shown in the face of adversity, albeit a different adversity than that he experienced in Vietnam.

In the course of this campaign, I have read (or am reading) three of his books.  Unlike his Democratic rival, he write at great length about others, not just those whom he has met in his life, but those he has admired from afar.  Barack Obama writes largely of himself, a fine background for a poet, but not the quality we need in national leader.

Obama has shown himself to be an effective public speaker.  John McCain would be a more effective decision-maker.

In a piece yesterday on the Republican’s honor, the editors of the Wall Street Journal get at what distinguishes John McCain:

If the 2008 election were solely about character and experience, Mr. McCain would be winning in a walk. Few Presidential nominees have been better known or more admired. A McCain Presidency would have its surprises, but they would not be from personal vice or political scandal. His courage has been tested far more than most — both in a personal sense in Vietnam, and in a political sense during the Iraq war.

Arguably the finest hour of Mr. McCain’s career was his support for the Iraq surge at the height of the war’s unpopularity. It was gratifying to see this virtue vindicated as he won the GOP nomination. But in an irony of history, his very far-sightedness on Iraq and the success of the surge have made national security seem less urgent as Election Day nears. His commanding edge over Mr. Obama as a Commander in Chief seems less compelling to many voters than do their current fears about the economy.


Forecasting the Outcome of Prop 8

I’m pretty much come to the conclusion that at this point in the campaign on Proposition 8 in the Golden State, any last minute ad blitz won’t make much of a difference.

What will be decisive (as in the presidential contest) will be how good a job the campaigns do in getting their people to the polls and how the undecideds break.  Given their more “organic” organizations, i.e., churches and other religious institutions, the turnout factor is going to help the “Yes” side. These people are more enthusiastic and can more easily sway people they know.

Of those “officially” (i.e, through their public statements to pollsters) undecided, my sense is that most already intend to vote for the initiative.  They just don’t want to admit that publicly.

Of those “legitimately” undecided voters, i.e,. those who really haven’t made up their mind, I think a good chunk of them will break against the initiative — or choose to not to vote at all on the proposition.  The default reaction of many voters is to vote “No” on an initiative.

Many conservatives, even while uncomfortable with the state Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage, will, like blogger Patterico, end up voting “No.”

While I believe the undecided Republicans (at least the urban and suburban ones) will break against the initiative, other more reliably Democratic demographic groups will vote in favor.   According to “Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor of politics at New York University who has studied black voting patterns on same-sex marriage, . . .  black voters consistently polled much lower than white voters on approval for same-sex marriage, about 16 percentage points.”  An increased black turnout due to enthusiasm for Barack Obama could thus boost support for Prop 8.

Similarly, Hispanic voters, largely Catholic, also tend to oppose gay marriage.

So, what does all this mean in the end?  There is a strong likelihood the initiative will pass, but that could change if undecided and wavering Californians actually vote on the initiative rather than leave the issue blank.

Why Feminists Should Love Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin has galvanized American social conservatives, those least responsive to the feminist message.

Shouldn’t feminists delight that conservatives have made a hero, a role model, of a woman?  Doesn’t the Alaska Governor remind young girls that they can succeed in positions of power and responsibility?

Those who savage this successful reformer help diminish the accomplishments of a strong woman.  When they badmouth her (as opposed to limiting their criticism to her policies), they define their feminism not as a means to empower women, but instead as an ideology designed to enact liberal policies and elect Democratic candidates.

Doesn’t sound much diferent from the agenda of the national gay groups.  Just replace the word, “women” with the expression “gays and lesbians.”

Some Things Never Change

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:59 am - November 2, 2008.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV,National Politics