Brutally Honest

What kind of moderator was Candy Crowley?

It should come as no surprise to those who think, who don't emote, who have a firm grasp of reality and aren't high on narcotics that she was biased.

Politico:

Amid persistent complaints and interruptions from both candidates, President Obama ultimately got more than three extra minutes of speaking time than Mitt Romney during Tuesday's debate.

According to CNN's timekeeping, Obama got 44:04 minutes of speaking time, while Romney got 40:50.

If my my math is correct, that's nearly 10% more time given Obama.

But wait, there's more.

Breitbart:

In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama only five.  

Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

Again, check my math but that's more than twice the number of interruptions.

Clearly, Ms. Crowley was doing what the media is known now to do.

Shill for their liberal co-ideologues.  Run interference for them.  Do what they can to help the Democrats and hinder the Republicans.

It's undeniable.

And rather sickening.

Jack Welch doubles down on the unemployment numbers

I think he makes valid points in this Wall Street Journal piece:

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism.

He goes on to detail his issues.

Contrast those details with the lack of same from those who are criticizing Welch for his assertions.  It's pretty easy to do because in fact, there are none... at least any that I've found.  Instead, there's bluster.

Which is revealing in and of itself.

Hats off to Mr. Welch for standing up to the lies.

May more do the same for the sake of the country.

Death blow? Seriously?

Chris Stirewalt at FoxNews is questioning the current gestalt taking place with the Obama loving press:

"You can mark my prediction now: A secret recording from a closed-door Mitt Romney fundraiser, released [Monday] by David Corn at Mother Jones, has killed Mitt Romney's campaign for president."

-- Bloomberg News political columnist Josh Barro

In mid-August, President Obama led Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by nearly 5 points in the Real Clear Politics Average of national polls. Today, after a spate of new polling, Obama leads by about half that.

While the race moved briefly into an absolute tie following the Republican National Convention, it's hard to see how the current contour of this race is very different than it has been all along: the incumbent leads, but only slightly.

The strong suggestion here is that the succession of moments that were said to have ruined Romney's chances were little noticed by voters.

The latest alleged death blow for Romney, a leaked video of the candidate telling donors that he didn't expect to win the votes of those who don't pay federal income tax, led every network news show this morning and is supposed to be the next big thing in the race. But since voters didn't seem to pay much attention to the previous "big things" what's to say that this one will be any different?

I continue to agree with those who say an opportunity has been handed Mr. Romney, an opportunity to reach out to those who work hard, who pay their share of taxes, and yet who see people on the dole driving better cars, talking on expensive cell phones and wearing better clothes than they themselves do, all while wanting those of us pulling them along in their dependence-on-government wagons to pull even harder.

Huge opportunity and perhaps the last opportunity to actually go and win this thing.

Don't blow it Mitt.

Just don't blow it.

[Image Source]

Did you hear the one about Jesus and his wife?

If you haven't in the last day or two, then you're simply not paying attention:

So there is this papyrus fragment from unknown writings that dates to centuries after Jesus and the Apostles that says in part, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ..."

That's it.

The scholar who presents this find, Harvard Divinity School Professor Karen King, goes to great pains to make the point that this find has absolutely no bearing and provides no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was married.

"What I'm really quick to say is to cut off people who would say this is proof that Jesus was married because historically speaking, it's much too late to constitute historical evidence," she continued. "I'm not saying he was, I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm saying this doesn't help us with that question,"

So what is the lede for almost every story? Jesus had a wife, of course.

Foxnews "Harvard scholar's discovery suggests Jesus had a wife"

WaPo "Did Jesus have a wife? New historical discovery raises old question"

ABCNews "Was Jesus Married? Ancient Papyrus Mentions His 'Wife'"

And so on...

Pat Archbold goes on to detail CNN's coverage and then finishes with a zinger conclusively proving that there's simply no way Jesus was married.

Go on with Pat and see for yourself.

“There are good story lines here”

Story lines about endorsing Obamacare the networks ought to be weaving into their scripts... according to The New York Times:

Realizing that much of the battle will be in the public relations realm, the exchange has poured significant resources into a detailed marketing plan — developed not by state health bureaucrats but by the global marketing powerhouse Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, which has an initial $900,000 contract with the exchange. The Ogilvy plan includes ideas for reaching an uninsured population that speaks dozens of languages and is scattered through 11 media markets: advertising on coffee cup sleeves at community colleges to reach adult students, for example, and at professional soccer matches to reach young Hispanic men.

And Hollywood, an industry whose major players have been supportive of President Obama and his agenda, will be tapped. Plans are being discussed to pitch a reality television show about “the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage,” according to the Ogilvy plan. The exchange will also seek to have prime-time television shows, like “Modern Family,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and Univision telenovelas, weave the health care law into their plots.

“I’d like to see 10 of the major TV shows, or telenovelas, have people talking about ‘that health insurance thing,’ ” said Peter V. Lee, the exchange’s executive director. “There are good story lines here.”

Via Tim Graham at Newsbusters who asks the relevant and seemingly obvious question:

So where is their outrage at the idea that federal grants would promote ObamaCare advertising inside network TV entertainment programs?

It's becoming tougher to recognize the America I grew up in.

Obama is “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet”

That's the message being put out by administration officials explaining away Obama's lack of interest in daily intelligence briefs.  In other words, Obama's intellect removes the necessity for face to face meetings with the intelligence community.  

Raise your hand if you're buying this crap:

When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes thatBush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

Vietor’s reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not needbriefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

Truly sophisticated consumers of intelligence don’t see it as a sign of weakness to “be briefed” by the experts. Most of us, if we subscribed to a daily report on, say, astrophysics, would probably need some help interpreting it. But when it comes to intelligence, Obama is apparently so brilliant he can absorb the most complicated topics by himself in his study. He does not need to sit down for up to an hour a day with top intelligence officials, or hold more than 100 “deep dives” in which he invites CIA analysts into the Oval Office and gives them direct access to the commander in chief to discuss their areas of expertise. Such meetings are crutches this president does not need. Written briefings, questions and comments are enough. Obama has more important things to do — such as attend Las Vegas fundraisers.

The mere fact that this man became President is disturbing enough.

Yet more disturbing is the notion that this man could be re-elected.

God help this country.

"I’m just trying to make sure..., no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question"

That from a journalist, coordinating with other journalists, before yesterday's Mitt Romney press conference.

Of course, I use the word journalist in the traditional sense:

RightScoop has audio, here's the transcription:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

What media bias?

 

 

"We've always tried to bring the country together"

Obama tells that whopper directly after telling quite another in an interview with... are you ready for this?

Entertainment Tonight:

"We're going around the country, talking about, ‘How do we put people back to work? How do we improve our schools? How do we make sure that we're producing American energy? How do we lower our debt in a responsible way?' And I don't think you or anybody who's been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country. We've always tried to bring the country together," President Obama said in an interview with Entertainment Tonight.

There's video at the link of this... if you have the stomach for it.

I don't.

Fake polls and the fakers who breathlessly report them

Like the fakers at Politico who run with the following headline:

Pew: Obama has big lead; Romney favorability drops 

Only to post an update a short time later when readers call them on their fakery:

We've been getting emails from readers pointing out that the sample of the poll is skewed toward Democrats. This is a fair point: the poll does sample significantly more Democrats than Republicans. As I noted above, these results are different than the mostly static numbers we've seen so far -- the sampling numbers explain why.

You can't help but wonder how many times the fakers in the media have been faking news in the past but weren't caught in their fakery.

How anybody can trust them now is simply beyond me.

[Image source]

Now can we call them anti-Christian?

I don't know how else to square the logic:

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

During the (understandable) controversy over the city selling land for a house of worship at a below-market rate a decade ago, reporters discovered that the Islamic Society of Boston counted imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as one of its spiritual guides. As the Weekly Standard reported at the time:

“The ISB does not dispute the fact that they have repeatedly used al-Qaradawi as a tool to raise funds for the Boston mosque, printing a brochure that highlighted al-Qaradawi’s enthusiastic support of the mosque and playing a videotaped message of support from him at a 2002 gathering.”

Also in attendance at the gathering, listening to al-Qaradawi’s message: Mayor Tom Menino.

I'm sure Menino, should he be confronted with what was just read, would atempt to wriggle out of it in some way by pointing out how may Muslims are moderate and how many would not take seriously the Quranic command to put the homosexual to death.

But that benefit of the doubt the idiot won't extend to Christians and so in the mental gymnastics tumbling forth from the excuse for a brain that sits in the man's head, he finds Christians more threatening in some way than Muslims.

Yea, I think we can call him anti-Christian.

And I think we can do the same for his buddy Obama.  Bowing to Muslim leaders, extending the open hand of friendship while in the same breath attempting to shove the HHS mandate down the throat of Catholics who actually believe in the tenets of their faith.

Yea, I think we can call him anti-Christian as well.

Crossposted at Wizbang.