Another Example of Media Bias

I have to put in my two cents on the layout of the Opinion Page in the print edition for The Bulletin today July 9 2011. Someone thinks he is being oh so clever!

On either side of a fantastic letter by John McCommas are seemingly combating op-eds. I love the concept but things didnt go 'right' --pun intended.

On the left, under the banner "From the Left", is a full frontal attack on presidential candidate Michele Bachman by Richard Cohen. Fair enough except for the unsubstantiated 'she hates fags' remark. On the right side, "From the Right", is ANOTHER attack on Mrs. Bachman! In a snarky backhanded way George Will basically writes she and her staff are "not ready for prime time". Will seemed to endorse Rick Perry from the way I read it.

What the fuck? -- Just whose idea of fairness and balance is this shit??!!! How about picking a From the Right columnist who is actually FOR BACHMAN? That would be the point-counterpoint you would expect in a head to head match up but someone seems to want it both ways here. The message sent was 'The Left AND the Right agree Bachman is a loser'.

Well that is not what the polls say lately boys!

I am not a Bachman supporter yet, I am leaning towards Rick Perry in fact, but I like her a lot and clearly she is not being treated fairly by The Bulletin and this is but the latest example. Mrs. Bachman is getting the same treatment as Sarah Palin gets. What is so threatening about a conservative woman who looks like she just might be our next president or Veep?

The Bulletin did the same exact thing a while ago with abortion which is another issue they are kinda funny about. From the Left had someone who naturally is *pro-choice*, but then on the other side was Kathleen Parker. Parker's so-called From the Right perspective was great until you get to the end where she says well gosh darn it even if abortion is murder, we still shouldn't make it illegal.

I guess that is a From the Right position the editor didnt mind printing, but that is not what most Pro-Lifers think.

The Norwich Bulletin seems to be saying heads the Left wins, and tails the Right loses.

note: The mentioned op-eds did not appear in The Bulletin's online version.

A Message From A Real Leader

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Susan Campbell Has P.D.S.

You know I keep running into this thing with you liberals suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS). You are all for women’s rights unless we are talking about a Republican woman (like the many that ran for office this year) and Sarah Palin most of all. How about showing the lady a little respect for once?

Liberals are such hypocrites. They have said and written the most the sexist, disrespectful things about Palin’s looks and supposed lack of intelligence (they said the same thing about Reagan as I recall) and so on. I mean just on and on and on. They would never let a Republican behave in such a brutish manner towards a Democrat woman.

Take what Susan Campbell at the Hartford Communist said on her blog.: If you like Palin’s brand of feminism than you are a man.

What is that supposed to mean? Well Campbell thinks she is being oh so very clever with her double entendre. Campbell was saying that Palin is not really a woman. On the other meaning, Yes Palin does indeed poll better with men than women but that is not surprising because all Republicans do. Campbell has nothing over Mae West in that department. I glanced over her link and it was just a long string of barely literate insults similar to Eaglehart’s incoherent rants. There must be a real case to be made against Palin. Why don't they?

And are we talking about real equality or just the moonbat things on the Femi-Nazi Agenda? You know because those are two very different things. Not everyone who supports equal rights also supports infanticide.

I think its safe to say Palin is all for women’s rights and not so much on the Loony Left’s Politics of Victimization for example. 'Boo hoo hoo. Somewhere there is a man who makes more money than me --- whaaaaahhhhhhhh'.

Tell it to someone who cares. Maybe all those men (and women) that get more money than you get more because they are better at your profession than you are? Do we want the government to try to make life fair in every instance? That’s not only un-doable, that’s stupid.

Palin for her part makes very good points, which the liberals seem unwilling to even try to refute. They just resort to more of the same sophomoric, lame brain bad manners that typify Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Click here for a fantastic essay by Jeff Goldstein on the subject of PDS.

Sarah Palin For President

This last go around Michael Reagan said something that I --- at the time -- reluctantly agreed with. He said that Republicans are looking around for his father. The younger Reagan said that someone like his Dad only comes around once in a lifetime. And certainly there was nobody remotely like the Gipper in 2008 Republican primary.

Well, as hardly needs to be pointed out, we settled for John McCain with a whimper. We let the media pick our candidate. McCain really wanted to pick Senator Joe Lieberman for Veep, but that would not have helped him with the base of the Republican Party. McCain used his VP choice to extend an olive branch to us real Republicans with his now historic choice of the Reaganeque governor of Alaska.

--- AND THEN ALL FUCKING HELL BROKE LOOSE!

Michael Reagan was wrong. I don't know how the old man did it, but Ronald Reagan was back -- and in high heels!

McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin was not just a game-changer; it was a stroke of genius. Dishearted Republicans like myself were so disillusioned with the wishy-washy McCain that we were actually considering voting for Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination of her party. Ann Coulter even endorsed her with some surprisingly strong reasons. Overnight real Republicans were suddenly genuinely enthusiastic for the McCain ticket. Palin is the reason why.

With Sarah Palin in the number two spot, real Republicans did not hesitate for a moment to cheerfully hop aboard the "Straight Talk Express". Had it not been for the energy Palin supplied, McCain would have lost by a lot more than he did.

In every way that is important, Sarah Palin IS RONALD REAGAN. There are others that have more experience, who are more eloquent with turn of phrase, or who you can argue deserve the nomination more by virtue of having toiled in the fields for so many years. But we did that in 1996 and Bob Dole lost; didn't' he?

Palin has her detractors and notably those detractors were Ronald Reagan's detractors as well. Almost every criticism of either Reagan or Palin are interchangeable. "to inexperienced", "dangerous", "not one of us", "to conservative to be elected".

Palin is the whole package. I can't tell you just exactly what it is, but Reagan and Sarah Palin both had/have it. There are so many parallels between Reagan and Palin that makes her ascendancy almost dare I say ..."inevitable"?

So far the media-liberals and the Democrats have recognised who Palin really is better than Republicans. Media-Liberals recognise Palin as the number one threat to Obama and his (and their) agenda. The media-liberals are not going to let her push Obama out of Pennsylvania Avenue 'after they have worked so hard to get him there.'

Expect stepped-up attacks.

If the Republican Congressional landslide in 1994 was Reagan II, than Palin's presidency is Reagan III.

Mark my words -- Sarah Palin will be the 44th President of the United States of America.