Media Ignores Negative Obama News
September 11, 2012 6 Comments
President Obama has skipped half of his daily intel meetings. He’s attended 412 hours worth of economic meetings but has spent over 600 hours on the golf course. Maybe that’s a reason why Moody’s is threatening to cut the US credit rating again. Where is the media on any of this? Remember in 1992 when the media mocked President Bush, 41, over his alleged amazement over a grocery store scanner? The media narrative was false, but they ran with it anyway. The other day President Obama couldn’t figure out how to work an iphone. There is no media mockery, just like there wasn’t for all his other silly gaffes.
Media bias in this election has been particularly obnoxious. It always is unfortunately. Dan Quayle misspells ‘potato’ because a teacher handed him a card with the word misspelled and it’s proof he’s a moron. Obama thinks there are 57 states and he’s given a pass. It goes beyond this though. The Democrats claim Obama saved 1.5 million jobs with his bailout of GM. The bailout cost taxpayers $25 billion according to the government. It would have been cheaper to just cut all the workers checks for $150,000.
Of course, Obama didn’t save 1.5 million jobs. He only saved all those jobs if they were going to be lost, which we know wasn’t going to happen if a normal bankruptcy restructuring would have occurred. The Democrats claimed that saving GM created 250,000 jobs. It’s a fiction. GM only created 4,500 jobs. Around 236,000 auto jobs have been created, mostly from foreign companies setting up shop in right to work states. Yet Obama claims his bailout of GM did all of these things, which of course isn’t true. W here are the media fact checkers? They must be fact checking Mitt Romney’s speech slated to be given next Monday.
Obama is partially responsible for the subprime mortgage fiasco. As a community organizer in 1995 Obama filed suit against several big banks alleging they weren’t following laws which force banks to lend money to people who cannot afford to repay the loans. These were Carter era laws that started getting enforced during the Clinton administration. This law suit, along with others across the nation and the Clinton administration’s enforcement of Carter’s law created the subprime mortgage crisis. Banks were forced to loan money to people based on race not ability to pay. They then sold and bundled mortgages creating the crisis. But for these subprime mortgages, we never would have had a housing or financial collapse.
Yet again the media is silent about Obama’s involvement. Even if you were to say that Obama was only involved in one or two suits in Chicago, how exactly is this information people shouldn’t have? Obama played a role in the subprime mortgage crisis. The lawsuits he filed as a community organizer played a role, like it or not. Sadly the mainstream media won’t even report it. But we’re supposed to trust them with ‘fact checking’ the candidates? The media can’t even be counted on to report facts much less fact check other people.
In the next two months we’ll see media bias on steroids. Everything Romney or Ryan do will be fact checked and scrutinized to death while everything Obama does will be glossed over. Just wait for the October accusations which will be levied at the Mormon Church and its history of racism. But the media will once again gloss over Obama’s relationship with racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. We Republicans are used to media bias but it doesn’t make it any less galling. We haven’t seen anything yet, next month is going to be brutal on the bias front.
About Steven
“The Democrats claim Obama saved 1.5 million jobs with his bailout of GM. The bailout cost taxpayers $25 billion according to the government. It would have been cheaper to just cut all the workers checks for $150,000.”
You are not taking into account any of the basic economic effects of keeping people working, i.e. tax revenue and unemployment payouts. See the following for a more thorough analysis:
http://politicdiscourse.com/2012/08/18/were-the-auto-bailouts-worth-66/
The claims about Obama’s involvement in the lawsuit you mention were refuted by snopes. Would you consider snopes as biased?
Crying about media bias in a blog accessible worldwide is a little ironic, don’t you think? You are the media now. If conservatives put out some good stuff, like you do sometimes, they could easily have more influence. Don’t hate on the mainstream media just because they cater to their audience–that is just capitalism in action.
The problem is that 1.5 million jobs were not in jeopardy. If anything, Obama cost 63,000 jobs by closing Republican owned GM dealerships throughout the country. The other jobs, they weren’t in jeopardy. Furthermore, the 1.5 million number counts all auto and auto related jobs. Which means it includes Ford which took no bailout and foreign auto makers which weren’t bailed out either. It’s a fundamentally dishonest figure.
As for the lawsuit Obama was involved in, I never said he was the lead attorney. He was involved in a class action lawsuit against Citibank that dealt with issues as stated as well as other issues. It strikes me as a fairly complicated lawsuit, most class actions are. So there were obviously multiple issues and it appears an 8 attorney team for the plaintiff.
Count me as one of the cynical. I do not trust the media to tell us the truth. They have proven they will “report” what is necessary to further their liberal agenda. This includes neglecting much of what Obama has done.
Even the self proclaimed media fact checkers have proven themselves biased. The liberal version of a fact is accepted as true and applied to the conservative version of a fact. They refuse to acknowledge that facts can be interpreted in more than one way and they refuse to apply other facts to the fact they allege to fact check. But we’re supposed to believe everything the fact checker says is true because they’re fact checkers and fact checkers can’t be biased. It’s a crock of nonsense.
I don’t get it. If Obama’s strategy to get re-elected is to tank the economy so as to get more and more people dependent on the government and more likely to vote Democratic and the main stream media is biased in favor of the Democrats then why would it take the trouble to present biased stories about the economy? After all-bad news is good news for the Democrats and the President. Let them talk about the lousy bailouts and Jimmy Carter’s responsibility for the mortgage crisis ( not the repeal of Glass-Stegall under Clinton of course). The liberal/Obama agenda calls for trashing the economy. Certainly the media can help by convincing Americans not to spend and not to invest thus helping to drive the economy back into a recession and cause a surge in government dependent Democratic voters: you know-those 47% who pay no income taxes. The ones who have been victimized. Hopefully the Democrats will drive it up to better than 55% and no Republican will ever get elected president again.
There’s bad news and then there’s bad news. Within the Obama administration I don’t think they view the economic news as particularly bad. The general public though doesn’t like the way the economy is going, they want it to be much stronger. That’s why you have all the media reports trying to make the economy look stronger than it really is. Obama at this point though benefits from a weaker economy which brings about dependance on government. He’s betting that those who are now dependant will vote to re-elect him and protect their entitlements. BTW I never said it was Obama’s goal to trash the economy. If the economy was strong, he would benefit. As it stands, we aren’t going to have a strong economy heading into this election and from the administration perspective that’s just as good as having a strong economy.
Obama will not win this election with 55% of the vote. He’ll win a 50-48 election.