Let me get this straight. Cindy McCain pays for a house for her aunt and gets rakes over the coals about how many houses she owns. But Barack Obama has an aunt living in the U. S. illegally and in public housing and he does nothing to help her?

 

Who’s really selfish?

One of the ongoing story lines in this election season is the preponderance of positive media stories for Senator Barack Obama. The latest example was Time’s Joe Klein gleefully speculating what an Obama presidency might look like. (Hat tip: Newsbusters)

 

Articles such as these should be seen by readers as what they really are: propaganda for Obama. To be more precise, the media are engaging in a technique known as the bandwagon:

 

Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.

(Emphasis mine)

Various media outlets will point to that unshakeable gospel of public opinion, the polls, as proof that their candidate, Senator Obama, has an insurmountable lead and Senator McCain should just go ahead and save everybody time and effort and concede the race now even though the voting doesn’t take place until November 4. Even Senator Obama can’t help himself from thinking ahead until after the election. (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt) Perhaps that’s why he is charging admission to the media for his big victory party on Election night.

 

The fatal flaw in this logic is that polls are far from perfect. In fact, there is growing evidence that they are totally unreliable. Even though some media outlets will use an average of polls as a truer barometer of public opinion if each one of the polls that is figured into that average is, in and of itself, imperfect then the average of those polls is also imperfect. You can at least be certain of this much: journalists probably aren’t asking any questions to determine the validity of the poll results.

 

At least signs point to voters realizing by an overwhelming margin that journalists want Senator Obama to win. (Hat tip: Newsbusters) Maybe voters are a whole lot smarter than the media thinks.

Senator Barack Obama was meeting in Richmond, Virginia today with his national security advisors. In the press conference following the Senator’s meeting, he was asked about his running mate’s comments over the weekend about challenges Obama would face if elected President. Senator Obama’s response was “You know I think that Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes.”

Now, I don’t have any idea what Senator Obama meant by “rhetorical flourishes” but this much is clear: his running mate has a propensity to put his foot in his mouth. The campaign seems to finally realize this is the case and that’s why he hasn’t spoken to the press in about six weeks.

Senator Biden should remember the old wartime adage that “loose lips sink ships.”  In fact, he should review the guidelines given to soldiers about writing home. Notice rule #6 which says “Don’t mention plans and forecasts or orders for future operations, whether known or just your guess. “

The senator, in speaking the truth about the actions our enemies are likely to take if Senator Obama is elected may have sunk their chances of winning on November 4.

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden caused quite a stir last weekend when he had this to say about the challenges his running mate will face early on in his administration if elected:

 

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

For those who are not familiar with their history, Senator Biden was referring to how Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev treated President John F. Kennedy during the initial months of Kennedy’s administration. Two major crises: the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missle Crisis arose following a disasterous (for Kennedy) summit meeting in June 1961 in Vienna. As this article published in the New York Times in May of this year pointed out, Kruschev correctly perceived Kennedy as weak and used that to his advantage:

 

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told
James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

The article also goes on to note that Kennedy went forward with the Vienna summit without first setting out preconditions for negotiations over the objections of his aides and his own Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

 

Senator Biden, who has boasted that he has “forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know” has made a revealing admission by making the comparison to Kennedy: Barack Obama is not equipped to be President of the United States.

 

I’d be willing to wager that if  Putin, Ahmadinejad, Chavez,  or Castro were to sit down at a summit across the table from a President Obama they are likely to come away with the same impression that Kruschev had of Kennedy: too intelligent and too weak.

 

We live in dangerous times and we face numerous threats as a nation. The Democratic presidential ticket has told us that if we elect them we are inviting more attacks from those who are bent on destroying us. That is a risk that America can’t afford to take. 

Orson Scott Card, who is a best-selling author and a newspaper columnist (and, incidentally, a Democrat) takes the media to task in his latest column for their collective failure to fully investigate the housing crisis (hat tip: Hot Air):

 

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere.  It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan?  It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

This is the kind of story that should have received extensive coverage in newspapers all across the country. He goes on to reveal the crux of the story:

 

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.  One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.  The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Any guesses who tried to fix the problem and who stopped those who wanted to fix it? Don’t take my word for it. Mr. Card nails it:

 

Isn’t there a story here?  Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?  Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.  “Housing-gate,” no doubt.  Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even
further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they
failed.

And then Mr. Card turns his attention to the media:

 

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.  That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.  You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do.  Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences.  That’s what honesty means .  That’s how trust is earned.

 

Take the time to read the entire thing. There’s a reason that people don’t trust the media anymore. A very good reason. 

Byron York has a fascinating account of a weekend rally for Senator John McCain and the outrage that has been directed at the media thanks to their sliming of Joe the Plumber. But the most striking moment was an encounter with one of those working-class Americans and what it says about the future of our country:

 

In the audience Saturday, there were plenty of people who were mad about it. There was real anger at this rally, but it wasn’t, as some erroneous press reports from other McCain rallies have suggested, aimed at Obama. It was aimed at the press. And that’s where Tito Munoz came in.
 
After McCain left, as the crowd filed out, Munoz made his way to an area near some loudspeakers. He attracted a few reporters when he started talking loudly, in heavily-accented English, about media mistreatment of Wurzelbacher. (It was clear that Spanish was Munoz’s native language, and he later told me he was born in Colombia.) When I first made my way over to him, Munoz thought I was there to give him the third degree.
 
“Are you going to check my license, too?” he asked me. “Are you going to check my immigration status? I’m ready, I have everything here. Whatever you want, I have it. I have my green card, I have my passport — “

I was a little surprised. Did Munoz really bring his papers with him to a McCain rally? I asked.
 
“Yeah, I have my papers right here,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. Right here, right here.” With that, he produced a U.S. passport, turned it to the page with his picture on it, and thrust it about an inch from my nose. “Right here,” he said. “In your face.”

This is what it has come to in this country. The fact that Mr. Munoz found it necessary to bring along his papers to prove his citizenship shows there are real reasons to worry about what an Obama administration will look like. Will the change it promises to bring be positive or more like other countries that hungered for the type of “change” that is big on promises but lacks specifics?

 

Americans have every right to be afraid of what will happen to their rights to free speech should Senator Obama win the election. If the Obama administration doesn’t use their power to suppress dissenting speech then they will just sic their media lapdogs on citizens to destroy them. Just ask Joe Wurzelbacher.

Senator Barack Obama has often said that running his campaign has given him executive experience to be President. However, this account from inside both campaigns gives reason to pause and consider what his management style is really like:

 

Obama’s campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it’s all for security reasons.
 
If so, I would love to have someone from Obama’s campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
 
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn’t be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it’s true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.

Keep in mind this is from a mainstream media reporter and they are, by all accounts, in the tank for the Democratic senator. But check out what he has to say next about Senator McCain’s campaign:

 

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who’ve been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.
 
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks
manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.
 
The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama’s past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

 

Senator McCain has plenty of reason to not be very friendly towards reports given the reprehensible treatment he and his running mate have received from some media outlets. Yet his staff is far more courteous and attentive to reporters’ needs.

 

Little details like this can make a huge impression. Successful organizations understand the importance of making sure everything works well. How these two men choose to treat the press speaks volumes about what kind of executives each of these men will be.

 

As the Bible says, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” (Luke 16:10)

Denouce Christ or your daughter dies. That is the choice faced by televangelist Simon Mason in the brand new thriller Forsaken by James David Jordan. When terrorists kidnap his daughter, Mason turns to Taylor Pasbury, a beautiful ex-Secret Service agent for help. But Taylor is a troubled young woman and her relationship with Simon becomes a “quirky love story wrapped in an action thriller” according to the author.

 

“I wanted to write books that were great stories first and had a spiritual message second because I wanted to try to reach people who ordinarily wouldn’t pick up that kind of novel,” said Mr. Jordan in a recent interview.

 

It’s safe to say that Mr. Jordan accomplished his mission with Forsaken. I started the book and could not put it down. And I’m not prone to read much Christian fiction.

 

My problem with most Christian novels is the temptation to make the characters too perfect which is an issue Mr. Jordan has as well.

 

“I am totally opposed to writing Christian fiction that revolves around religious superheroes.,” said Mr. Jordan. “They (Simon and Taylor) make mistakes just like the rest of us.”

 

The fact that the two main characters are flawed is precisely what makes the book so compelling. Simon has made his share of mistakes and some of those, if they became known, would destroy his life and ministry.

 

Taylor, on the other hand, is a woman of nominal faith and has been wounded by a mother who abandoned her and a father who was brutally murdered. She also has a lousy track record when it comes to relationships. She hides behind her tough veneer but deep down is someone who cares deeply for others. It’s clear as her relationship develops with Simon she finds something attractive about him. But she is also intrigued by his faith and the struggles he works through as he wrestles with his decision whether to renounce his faith or save his daughter. It’s a struggle grounded in Matthew 10:37-38 and a question that any Christian would find difficult to answer.

 

Forsaken strikes the balance between a compelling plot and a fascinating character in Taylor Pasbury. Mr. Jordan already has a second novel completed that will be published next year and will pick up on the loose ends left at the end of this book including details of her backstory.

 

Hats off to Mr. Jordan for constructing a terrific story that is also rich with Christian themes that will cause the reader to think about the practical workings of faith in real-life situations. Having met Taylor Pasbury through Forsaken, I can’t wait to read the next chapter in her story. She’s a character I could get used to reading about for a long time. I suspect Mr. Jordan wouldn’t mind writing about her for years to come. If you haven’t read a good thriller in a while, go pick up Forsaken. You’ll be glad you did.

 

Click here to listen to the interview with James David Jordan.

Governor Sarah Palin hit a monumental home run with her debate performance tonight and put to rest all those pesky doubts about her abilities to serve as Vice-President. Of course, her supporters already knew she was up to the job. It was the media naysayers and Beltway pundits that had to be reminded of the innate talents this women possesses that haven’t been seen in another politician since Ronald Reagan.

 

Senator Joe Biden turned in a fair performance himself. No major gaffes but lots of false statements.

 

Still, this debate was all about Governor Palin. It served as a reminder as why voters like her so much. It also reminded us of when she is really at her best: when she can speak directly to the American people without any assistance (or is that interference?) from the media.

 

So, here is my advice to the McCain campaign: put Governor Palin on every talk radio show both national and local that you can get her on over the next four weeks and let her use her immense communication skills in speaking directly to voters. Have her sit down with the high traffic bloggers and let them record podcasts or video interviews that are completely unedited and, more importantly, unfiltered.

 

Don’t bother granting any more interviews to Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, or any of the other MSM dinosaurs. They don’t deserve the privilege of talking to her.

 

Governor Palin is at her best when she can speak from the heart directly to the people without having to worry about “gotcha” questions from a hostile media that is totally in the tank for Senator Barack Obama. Bypass all the traditional media outlets and take your message directly to the voters. It will have a far greater impact than you can possibly imagine.

 

Where have all the real men gone? Where are the men who will take a stand for something? Or will be responsible for their own actions? Protect their family? Be the hero?

If you’re like me, you know that such men are hard to find. That’s in large part because most men today are a shadow of the men that God designed them to be. Men have been emasculated for years by radical feminism. Our country is paying the price for real men not being around to step up and lead. Families are suffering because real men aren’t there to lead them. Churches are becoming weaker because real men haven’t stepped up to take charge.

Thankfully, there is hope for men. Author and talk show host Kevin McCullough not only has identified the problem but provides practical solutions in his new book The Kind of Man Every Man Should Be: Taking a Stand for True Masculinity.

Read the rest of this entry

I’m scheduled to appear on World, Have Your Say on the BBC World Service between 1pm and 2pm ET today. We’ll be discussing tonight’s vice-presidential debate and the influence of the media on the election. You can hear the program online at the BBC World Service homepage or on Sirius and XM Radio.

For ninety minutes tonight, Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden will square off in the one and only vice-presidential debate of this campaign season. While there’s been lots of hangwringing over how Governor Palin will do in the debate, I think the worry is unnecessary. In fact, the debate may actually work in Governor Palin’s (and ultimately Senator John McCain’s) favor.

 

Here’s how I got there: the debate will allow the voters to see both candidates completely unfiltered. There’s no spin, no helpful media covering up one candidate’s gaffes, no exploitative media blowing the other candidate’s gaffes way out of proportion. People will get to see them both as they really are and be able to make up their minds about which one they like better.

 

In the end, I don’t think that who wins the debate will matter all that much. As Rich Galen points out, Dan Quayle had a horrible debate in 1988 and it didn’t stop George H. W. Bush from being elected.

 

Just as an aside, I think his over-under of three and a half is on the low side.

 

Back to my original point: voters will get to see the candidates as they really are without the influence of any media spin (positive or negative). That’s the real value in having a debate.

 

Governor Palin, when she is relaxed, comes across as very real. For many voters that’s incredibly appealing.

Senator Biden, while being very intelligent and experienced, has one major flaw: he talks too much.

Governor Palin has to have the same kind of performance she did during her acceptance speech at the Republican convention.

 

Senator Biden has to tread carefully so that he doesn’t (a) say something really stupid and ultimately damaging to the campaign and (b) doesn’t come across as condescending towards Governor Palin.

 

On balance, I think Senator Biden is the one who is under more pressure going into this debate.

 

There’s also the issue of moderator Gwen Ifill. I don’t watch PBS as a rule so I can’t speak with any confidence as to how well she’s going to do. The consensus of opinion I have heard is that she will do a fine job.

 

But I don’t think she should have ever accepted the job in the first place. Her book deal has what lawyers like to refer to as the “appearance of impropriety”. It’s not that you can say with certainty that it’s wrong for her to moderate the debate but it certainly looks bad. Her credibility will no doubt be damaged. However, this little controversy is likely to drive up ratings for the debate even further as viewers will be curious to see how she handles the questioning of the two candidates.

Regardless of the actual outcome of the debate, the media will declare Joe Biden the winner as they are making no secret of the fact they are in the tank for Senator Barack Obama. They did their best to declare Senator Obama the winner of the first debate even though it was clear to just about anyone who watched the entire thing that Senator McCain had the better night.

 

While I don’t expect the debate tonight to make that much of a difference in the outcome of the election the two candidates’ performance will say something about the men who selected them as their running mates. As it should.