Karl Rove's Sly Deal With Fox? Wow, This Is Really Inside Stuff No One Could Discern 1 comments
By:Ed Bagley
Imagine my surprise when I went online recently and encountered this headline: "Karl Rove's Sly Deal With Fox". Think of a conservative, right-wing political hack with slight-of-hand magic out to pull a fast one over on American voters. You get the picture.
This incredible insight comes from Amanda Terkel and Matt Corley, who sound more like an ice-skating dance team—and now, Terkel and Corley with all of the suspense of Ravel's "Bolero"—than highly sought after investigative political commentators.
This duo is letting the voting public know that Fox News political analyst Karl Rove, disguised as a Fox News political analyst, is really "playing a strategic role that he and the network refuse to reveal to viewers."
I was stunned to learn this revelation, not that Rove is playing some hidden role, but that Terkel and Corley think the American viewers are so stupid that they could not possibly figure this out without their brilliant insight.
Terkel and Corley take pains to point out that Fox News introduces Karl Rove as a "former senior advisor to President Bush," the architect," a "political wizard" and a "famed political consultant," noting that he has never been introduced as he should be—an informal advisor and maxed-out donor to John McCain's presidential campaign.
Karl Rove is certainly as advertised by Fox News. I suspect that Dick Morris is too, as well as dozens of other spin doctors, talking heads, political consultants, hacks and mouthpieces for either major party and every one in-between.
Do Terkel and Corley really think that Democrats go on television and do not do a candidate's bidding? They give the impression that all Democrats are introduced as a backer of this or that Democratic candidate. This is sheer nonsense.
Viewers who follow politics know that Karl Rove is not on Fox News to read Bible verse to flaming, left-wing liberals. They also know that James Carville and Paul Begala are not on television to read Bible verse to flaming, right-wing conservatives.
Anyone with a modicum of sensibility can identify Sean Hannity as a flaming right-wing conservative and Alan Colmes as a flaming left-wing liberal. Both of these birds are such shills for their party that they really challenge the idea of giving them even a shred of credibility.
Both of them promote polarization in a fit of righteousness for their particular viewpoint, ignoring any understanding or consideration for the other. Their nightly debate is not so much a debate as a shouting match of sarcasm and stupidity. They seem to entertain themselves more than others.
The challenge with the majority of these disclosed and undisclosed political backers on television is that they seem to think that if they granted their opposition even one point in conversation, the would lose all of their credibility. They fail to understand that they have very little credibility to begin with.
Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and all of the associated parties around them are about as important as I think they are—no more and no less. I will decide whom to vote for and why, and feel very comfortable doing it without a song and dance from Terkel and Corley, or anyone else.
It is like watching a televised presidential debate, and then all of the commentators come on immediately and tell me what and how I am supposed to think about a candidate's performance. Their arrogance astounds me.
These commentators treat voters like we are silly, immature 9 to 13-year-old children without a brain in our head or the ability to use it.
Article Source: http://www.a1-articledirectory.com
Can Obama Really Win? 0 comments
By:Todd Smith
Many thought the day would never come. A day that all Americans could prove to their children that they could become whatever they want in life no matter what their background is. A day that Americans could put aside their differences and see their neighbors for the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
Barack Obama’s stunning victory at the Iowa Caucus ignited a spark among Democratic voters, reminiscent of the days of Camelot and John F. Kennedy. Many believed that a state like Iowa, with a miniscule Black population, would never elect an African American to such a high position, but Obama’s message of change resonated in the Hawkeye State, as 37.6 percent of Iowa voters selected him to represent the Democratic party in November.
More shocking was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s third place finish with 29.5 percent of Iowa Democrats supporting the New York Senator.
According to the Associated Press, Obama’s victory marked the first time an African American candidate has won such a vital caucus or primary.
“Years from now you’ll be able to say, ‘This was the moment when it all began.’ This is the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear and doubt and cynicism,” a victorious Obama told a crowd of supporters at a Des Moines, Iowa sports arena.
Obama dominated the college-age vote and enjoyed enormous success among Blacks in Waterloo, Iowa.
His success among African Americans should assist in his chances in November because many Black voters still believe he is not electable.
Obama’s wife Michelle believes America is ready for a Black president despite the skepticism.
“Ain’t no Black people in Iowa. Something big, something new is happening. Let’s build the future we all know is possible. Let’s show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now,” said Michelle Obama at the Trumpet Awards, a gala celebrating achievement in Black America.
Despite his resounding win in Iowa, and pollsters predicting a double-digit win in the first primary of 2008, Obama finished a close second to Clinton in New Hampshire days later. Surprisingly, Clinton defeated Obama 39 percent to 37 percent in the Granite State. However, the Illinois senator was still upbeat and optimistic in defeat.
“We always knew our climb would be steep. You made it clear that at this moment in this election, there is something happening in America … You can be a new majority,” Obama told his supporters in New Hampshire. Clinton recently won the primary in Michigan and the Nevada caucus also.
According to Allen G. Breed of the A.P., “Obama’s stunning victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Iowa caucuses and strong second in New Hampshire’s primary showed he could win White votes. But some say the South Carolina contest offers a new test of his viability. Can he energize Black voters in places where their numbers could help him win in November?”
On January 26, Obama won the South Carolina primary in a landslide, winning 55 percent of the Democratic vote.
At least half of South Carolina Democrats are Black and they could have been persuaded to distance themselves from Clinton because comments she and her husband Bill Clinton made, which some people view as racially insensitive.
Clinton recently stated that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former president later said that Obama was telling a “fairy tale” about his opposition to the war in Iraq, and that he has received a free pass in this election.
Clinton later went on “Meet the Press” to explain her comments and implied that Obama was injecting race into the election.
“I think it offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous,” Obama replied.
According to the A.P., Clinton’s advisors claim that an Obama staffer has compiled examples of comments by Clinton and her surrogates that could be construed as racially insensitive. The memo later surfaced on some political Web sites.
“To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think that Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in Black issues—when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in his book—when they have been involved,” argued BET founder Bob Johnson in a reference to Obama’s past drug use.
Johnson later said he was talking about Obama’s community activism and not his past drug use.
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards replied, “I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that.”
Ironically, the change that Dr. King gave his life for could be the same change that gives America its first Black president. As Obama’s campaign slogan says, it is a “change we can all believe in.”
About the Author
Author: Jeremy James | Total views: 81
Word Count: 844
Rating: Not yet rated | Votes: 0
Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men