Don’t blame the messenger(s) (colluding on the ‘net): they’ll just brand you racist (with no basis in fact)

For those who scoffed at the notion that any media collusion to help a completely unvetted Obama existed, may I present Journolist.  Esteemed J-list members, fuming over the Jeremiah Wright bump in the road and its potential to kill Obama’s campaign, spoke of “killing” the coverage (why liberals have such fascination with violent language is beyond me.  Maybe it’s a good thing they don’t believe in gun ownership, no?)

Jonathan Strong at the Daily Caller:

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Alinsky 101.  Freeze it, polarize it.  Doesn’t matter if it’s true.  Pick a conservative–any conservative–and call him a racist.  Sheds light on the Tea Party accusations, no?

Ed Morrissey comments:

Ackerman’s attempt to rally his colleagues into another strategy entirely — the racist attack — was deliberately political […] 

Let’s put this in its proper perspective.  Ackerman wasn’t talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else.  The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House.  Notice that Ackerman doesn’t even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat.  Tellingly, the pushback from members of Journolist had less to do with the outrageous idea of smearing an innocent person of racism to frighten people away from the story than with whether it would work.  Mark Schmitt, now at American Prospect, warned that it “wouldn’t further the argument” for Obama, and Kevin Drum objected because playing racial politics would “probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly.”

Evidence–who needs it?  Especially since there was so much to support the idea that Obama was completely inept with no executive experience.  Let’s bury that, too. 

Back to the Journolist:

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

Funny, sir, that you think “killing” the coverage actually “serves the people.” 

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

That coordinated statement made its way to the NY Times. 


Need more moral justification for deliberately conspiring to shape the news coverage?  Blame it on Bush, of course.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

Read the rest

Andrew Breitbart issues another challenge:

American journalism died a long time ago; today Tucker Carlson got around to running the obituary. What The Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs. They deserve the deepest levels of public consternation. We must demand that they do.

The only way that the media will recover from the horrifying discoveries found in the Journolist is to investigate and investigate until every guilty reporter, professor and institution is laid bare begging America for forgiveness. Will they do it?

I agree with Pundette–it’s doubtful: 

They’ll just keep lying and smearing.

Meanwhile, their fraudulent candidate is wrecking the country as quickly as he can

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection reminds us to keep our eye on the ball:
The real story is that liberal journalists manipulated the 2008 election by actively campaigning in secret for Barack Obama, and stifling debate on critical issues by smearing opponents as racist.

This is no joke. We now are paying the price, both in the destruction of our economy and standing in the world, and the continued race-card playing antics of groups like Think Progress and the NAACP. The race card tactic was so successful in 2008, that it is being tried again and again.

Don’t get mad, get even … at the polls. Remember November.

He links to Thomas Sowell, who writes:

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can’t judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.

Let’s hope  pray.

More from Gateway Pundit who has a video reminder of the filth spewed by Obama’s minister (who, coincidentally married the Obamas and baptized their children.  Not that they ever heard or agreed with any of his racist invective.  Just sayin’.) 
H/T: Memeorandum

One Response

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fuzzy Slippers, politicaljunkieMom. politicaljunkieMom said: Don't blame the messenger(s) (colluding on the 'net): they'll just brand you racist (with no basis in fact): […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: