Answers to Comments...

In this posting, I'd like to address two comments made in response to my blogposts.

A comment on my last post about Obama being a teflon candidate created by the media, a reader wrote:

"Your guy lost. Get over it. The same 'liberal media' pushed the Whitewater story for years when there was nothing there, and never questioned the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. You also make it sound like Obama always attended the church and Wright always made these rants every week for twenty years - not likely. I can't believe that you have never sat through a sermon/drasha where some outrageous statements were made and didn't bother to walk out. I know I have. Bottom line - Obama won because the incumbent party screwed up royally for the past eight years, and his opponent was a crotchety old man who picked a bimbo as his running mate."

Before I nitpick the points I disagree with, let me start off by saying that, overall, I agree with the comment. This part is true: The incumbent President did screw up royally the past eight years, and Obama's Republican opponent was a crotchety old man, who was not up to the challenge Obama presented. Sarah Palin, as air-headed as she seemed, is far from a bimbo, although I admit that the media portrayed her that way. It was a bold, dramatic move to name her as his running mate, and it, clearly, backfired.

Certainly, the better campaigner won, maybe even the better candidate.

And I already wrote that I'm not depressed, upset or moving to Canada just because Obama won. I wish him well and I am optimistic about our - America's - future.

But that doesn't mean I can't analyze and look back on how this election happened to play out the way it did. The liberal media itself made fun of their adoration and idol-worship of Barack Obama. (See the SNL skit in which hard questions were posed to 'Hillary Clinton,' she didn't know the answer, the moderator gave her the answer and then asked the same question of 'Barack Obama.') The idea that he had no legislative initiatives in two (now four) years in the Senate, are not my words. They came from either Chris Mathews or the late Tim Russert (I just don't remember which). So I think its fair game to look back and express my opinions - supported by fact - as to how this man got elected.

Truth be told, I do not recall that the liberal media pushed the Whitewater story for years when there was nothing there. I remember conservative talk radio pushing that story when there was nothing there, and the liberal media reporting on it from time-to-time, as there was some twist in the investigation that they deemed newsworthy. But for argument's sake, let's say the liberal media did harp on that story. That doesn't surprise me. From time to time they do turn on their own. I'm not sure of their motives, although I suspect they may be different in each situation. I believe that sometimes they turn sour on one of their own, sometimes they report negatively about a liberal politician out of true journalistic fairness, and sometimes, they feel coerced or embarrassed by alternate media (e.g., talk radio, internet) into reporting negatively about one of their own.

As far as the liberal media not questioning the President in the run-up to the war on Iraq, there's a lot of lies and history revisionism about that era. The absolute truth is that the Congress and the President had the same (faulty) intelligence reports about Sadam having WMD. The Congress - the Democrats in Congress - believed its sources as did the President. To this day we have no idea why they were wrong. Did someone deliberately plant misinformation in order to make the war happen - and if so, who? Or was it simply faulty intelligence, a well-intentioned honest mistake? No one knows. But Congress confirmed the President's reports from its own sources.

Finally, about Reverend Wright and Obama knowing - or not knowing - what he said, how often the Reverend was controversial and spewed radically anti-American or anti-semitic rhetoric, and about walking or not walking out of his church. Look, you or and I may not walk out of a Rabbi who says something we don't like or agree with. But then again, you and I are not running for the Presidency of the United States. Furthermore, according to reports, even if this rhetoric was not an every week occurrence, it was a recurring theme of the Reverend. If your Rabbi espoused anti-Israel rhetoric numerous times over the course of several years as a recurring theme I guarantee that you would not continue as a member of that synagogue. Some of Wrights repeated and recurring comments were so outrageous - even if, as he claims, they were taken out of context, that Obama should have found another church in which to pray. I do hold him responsible for his silence and for staying.

To be sure, there are more reasons that Obama won than just the liberal media. And that media, for all its power and influence, which I absolutely believe it flexed extremely well in this election cycle, is not always successful. (Say what you will about "W" stealing the election in 2000 from Al Gore, if the liberal media had succeeded then as they did now, Gore would not have needed Florida to win - and lost his home state of Tennessee!) Witness the fact that until this election, 5 of the last 7 elections for President were won by the Republicans. (And certainly, in the Internet/New Media era, the influence of the old liberal media - the 3 big papers, the three big networks and the two big newsweeklies - are certainly on their decline.)

Nevertheless, I believe they made Obama into a celebrity, a star, and a savior/"messiah." There are millions of people - despite what exit polls will tell you - voted for him "just because" and have no idea what he stands for or why (other than "change"). And just because he won and my guy lost doesn't mean I can't criticize how and why he won or criticize his decisions and applaud the choices he's made that I think are good.

(By the way, I used to be a big fan of talk radio, but I don't get to listen that often anymore. I am not looking to parrot them, nor do I have any clue what they are saying at any given moment.)



On my suggested solution to the Michael Vick/Plaxico Burress situation, a reader wrote to me off the blog: "You're a communist!" Of course, I am not. (My political philosophy is actually closer to libertarian.) And nothing in my blog suggested I was - I was not taking any money AWAY from anyone nor was I limiting what they could earn - OR EVEN SPEND! - I was just putting in some watchdogs to protect their money and make sure they don't get into trouble by spending it on things that are ILLEGAL! The funny thing is, most of these contracts have some variety on a "morality clause" which allows the teams to cancel their payments to the players should they wind up in serious trouble with the law. (Both the Falcons and the Giants cancelled their contracts with Vick and Burress and stopped paying them millions of dollars.) It is a bit ironic but the teams are protected from the players bad acts but the players are not protected from themselves. We have laws to protect the interest of minors, of the elderly and of legally determined incompetents; I am just extending this concept to these young men, legally of majority age, who just seem to wind up "blinded by the light." It is for their own good that they and their money be watched. (Remember, I said they could buy anything they wanted so long as it is legal.) But I know it won't happen, even if the league and the unions could make it happen, if they wanted to.