November 21, 2011

AP Attempting to Rewrite History of Obama’s and Dems’ Occupy Movement Support, Alliance

APheartsObamaGive John Nolte a gold star. In a Friday post at BigJournalism.com entitled “Panicked AP Attempts to Memory-Hole Democrats’ #Occupy Endorsements,” Nolte latched onto the beginnings of the establishment press’s desperate attempt to distance President Obama and the Democratic Party from the rapidly devolving Occupy movement.

The disingenously headlined item Nolte caught, apparently from an earlier report (“Democrats see minefield in Occupy protests”) appeared via Beth Fouhy on Thursday at the Associated Press, which yours truly has often taken to naming the Administration’s Press. Later, as seen here, a revised version came in with this howler of a headline: “Wary Democrats keep distance from Occupy protests,” while the calculated attempt to create separation in the article’s text got even worse. First, excerpts from Nolte’s post (bolds are mine; links were in original):

Occupy Wall Street’s imploding, Obama and the Democrats own the chaos, and now the AP is panicking.

… Two months ago, the White House, Democrats, and the MSM were all sure that the #OccupyWallStreet movement would save them in 2012. With thousands of astro-turfed morons in the streets raging against Wall Street, Obama’s allies hoped to use said morons to create a silver lining in the economic cloud he himself created.

… the idea was to create Occupy in order to give the MSM the cover they desired to spend every single day up until the election talking about greed and income inequality in order to blame both for the stagnant economy.

The hope was that by repeating this message incessantly, enough voters could be convinced that Wall Street, and by extension, evil Republicans, were to blame for our chronic unemployment, record deficits, and stillborn economic growth. President Obama who?

Fortunately for America, this plan has not only failed miserably it has backfired completely. Thanks to the rise of New Media and our unwillingness to let the MSM’s lies, bias, and cover ups stand for even one more day, Occupy is in its death throes and might take the President and Democratic party down with it. First and foremost, we uncovered the lie that Occupy was grassroots and then we exposed every Occupy rape, poop, death, overdoese, old woman thrown down the stairs, attack on a police officer, and public act of masturbation. In the process, public opinion turned against the Occupiers and as a result these Leftists have started doing what the Left always does when they lose, have a tantrum.

But like I said, the Left and their media allies didn’t expect New Media to own this story and to use the truth to drive the narrative out of their control. And we know they didn’t expect to lose this one because almost every prominent Democrat in America very publicly jumped aboard the Occupy movement with the expectation that their allies in the MSM could control the outcome.

So what’s a shameless left-wing media to do?

What they always do. Rewrite history.

And it looks as thought the Associated Press has decided to start the memory-holing …

Here are the first three paragraphs of Beth Fouhy’s memory-holing spotted by Nolte:

Democrats see minefield in Occupy protests

The Republican Party and the tea party seemed to be a natural political pairing. But what may have seemed like another politically beneficial alliance — Democrats and Occupy Wall Street — hasn’t happened.

Although both Democrats and the Occupy protesters have similar views on economic inequality and corporate responsibility, each holds the other at arm’s length. There’s little benefit to Democrats in opening their arms wide to a scruffy group that has erupted in violence, defied police and shown evidence of drug use while camping in public parks across the country — much as the prospect of such a pairing delights Republicans.

Many protesters, in turn, are contemptuous of Democrats, arguing that both political parties are equally beholden to corporate interests and responsible for enacting policies that have hurt the middle class.

That’s all complete horse manure, Beth, and in at least one instance Nolte found (I’m sure there are so many more, especially at the local and regional level) your wire service and your reporters know it:

  • As Nolte pointed out with the help of a Drudge graphic (“Obama: ‘We Are On Their Side”) and links to stories showing House Democrats (Oct. 10, via AP), top Democrats (Oct. 5), Nancy Pelosi (Oct. 9), President Obama (Oct. 18), and the SEIU (Nov. 15), an alliance has already happened, and as far as I or anyone else can tell it hasn’t been formally severed (until that happens formally and publicly, that alliance will remain in force).
  • As noted, they aren’t holding each other at arm’s length. If this were a conservative movement run amok after expressions of Republican and conservative support, reporters would be hounding every politician who originally jumped on board demanding to know where they stand now that things have gone awry. But we’re not seeing any of that from the press, are we? Imagine that. Maybe (not maybe, actually) it’s because the press’s own union, the Newspaper Guild, has so obviously thrown in with the Occupiers, and now journalists are scrambling to dig two groups’ keisters (their own as well as Democrats’) out of very big holes.
  • Funny, Beth, your wire service did almost everything it could for about two months until your item came along to avoid describing the Occupy protesters as scruffy, violent, defiant of police, or drug users. Now I’m supposed to believe that they’re the rabble with whom the Democratic Party has never associated? As I said above, horse manure.
  • Finally, I note that the Occupiers didn’t have much of a problem accepting money and help from the very government unions (and certain unions in the private sector) — all of which are joined at the hip with the Democratic Party. So at ease with the so-called wariness, will you?

As I noted earlier, the dissembling got even worse in the early paragraphs of Fouhy’s revised report:

Wary Democrats keep distance from Occupy protests

The arrests and occasional violence marking Occupy Wall Street’s two month anniversary underscore Democrats’ strategy of keeping their distance from the protest movement.

Democrats and Occupy Wall Street share similar concerns about economic inequality. But while the Republican Party and the tea party were a natural political pairing, Democrats have been reluctant to cast their lot with Occupy agitators who confront police and squat in public encampments.

Geez, it just keeps getting deeper doesn’t it? It’s more baloney from Beth:

  • Democrats’ have never had a “strategy” of keeping their distance, because they never have kept their distance.
  • Democrats cast their lot with Occupy agitators two months ago, and have never let go.

Fouhy and the rest of AP want readers to believe that Democrats and the Occupiers have had almost nothing to do with each other. Sorry, Beth: The historical record is what the historical record is, and you no longer have sole ownership of what it will be.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

______________________________________________

BizzyBlog Update: There’s also this from October, linked to a report at the Financial Times which opens thusly:

Barack Obama, US president, offered more support for protesters against the global financial system after a weekend of demonstrations in cities around the world, but called on them not to “demonise” those who worked on Wall Street.

On Sunday, Mr Obama honoured Martin Luther King at a dedication to a new memorial on National Mall in Washington. Referring to protests that have spread from Wall Street to London, Rome and elsewhere, Mr Obama said: “Dr King would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonising those who work there.” Mr Obama had previously said the protests “express the frustration” of ordinary Americans with the financial sector.

Chris Matthews Turns on Obama — For Now

From Breitbart (direct YouTube) — Well, at least for now, for show, though he makes some good points in spite of himself:

Select quotes (my reax in italics):

  • “He never tells us what he’s goin to do to reform our health care systems, Medicare, Medicaid.” (Are you kidding me, Chris? I thought ObamaCare solved all of that. Obama thinks his work is done. All that’s left is to build the bureaucracy.)
  • “Commander, give us our orders, and tell us where we’re going, give us the mission.” (Translation: “Tell us how we need to twist the news for the next year, will ya?” Chris would be quite at home in Venezuela.)
  • “I hear stories that you would not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election. ‘They don’t call. He never calls.’ That’s the message. … He doesn’t like their company.” (Everyone convinced him, if he didn’t think he was already, that the he was the Anointed One, Chris, including you, who got a thrill up your leg after hearing a freaking speech. What the heck did you expect? No one is worthy of him.)

Obama need not worry. Chris will be back. Apparatchiks with nowhere else to go always come back.

Caddell and Schoen to Obama: Don’t Run

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:39 pm

In the Wall Street Journal today, Democratic pollsters (in a pathetic preemmptive slap, the National Journal calls them “former Democratic pollsters”; they’re both Democrats right now, and they’re both pollsters right now; so like it or not guys, they’re “Democratic pollsters”) advocate that Barack Obama not run for reelection, and hand the Democratic Party’s nomination over to Hillary Clinton:

The Hillary Moment
President Obama can’t win by running a constructive campaign, and he won’t be able to govern if he does win a second term.

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

Point A — As Rush said today, it’s more than likely not going to happen. The Narcissist-in-chief needs to be flattered and buttered up to be convinced that he should not run with arguments like:

  • “This is beneath your dignity, bro; you need to go on and lead the whole world to a better place like you have America (cough, cough).”
  • “We can tell you’re bored and not happy in the White House. Who wouldn’t be, when there’s so many people keeping you from fundamentally transforming America as fast you’d like?”
  • “(this one’s mine) Hey, you need to get back to community organizing until you come back like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro did.”

Instead, later in their column, Caddell and Schoen observe that “By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength.” Does anyone think Barack Obama gives a damn about that, except to consider each item a good thing? Shoot, if that’s what will come from a second term, Obama is saying, “Sign me up!”

Point B — Some of us (that would include me) remember how radical (Black Panthers’ defense) and deceitful (pretending not to ever have known about Monica Lewinsky until the rest of us did) Hillary Clinton really is, and are not convinced that she would govern any differently from Obama. She might conceivably be more practical like her husband was at times, but when he was President she was seen as the one who was frustrated the most when nationalized health care failed (it was Hillary’s baby, after all) and was the most determined to pursue dirty opposition tactics like purloining opponents’ FBI files, discrediting Clinton’s female accusers, and the like.

Point C — In the highly likely event that Obama doesn’t handle withdrawing and staying out of the way well, as both LBJ and Truman did, he could end up discouraging his die-hard supporters from going over to Mrs. Clinton.

Point D — Team Obama will quickly remind everyone that in both previous instances where an incumbent Dem chose not to run, a Republican won the presidency (Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 over Adlai Stevenson, and Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968). In the latter case, Humphrey discouraged leftists who had wanted Gene McCarthy, the assassinated Bobby Kennedy, or George McGovern to get the nomination by refusing to say that he’d withdraw immediately from Vietnam. Hillary could similarly discourage the loony-left base if she doesn’t adopt every single one of Obama’s unfinished 2008 campaign planks, even the ones he’s flipped on (like Gitmo).

Unfortunately, I think Caddell and Schoen are critically wrong in the second part of their op-ed’s subhead above. If Obama wins a second term, he’ll govern by Executive Order, regulatory mandate, and other authoritarian means, and dare the opposition to stop him. Sadly, I wouldn’t bet on the opposition having the nerve to do what it must if that happens.

________________________________________________

UPDATE: Now that Rush has his post up, here are excerpts —

Here’s a pull quote from the piece. “If President Obama is not willing –” listen to this, now. “If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election — for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative — Hillary Clinton.”

Now, the Schoen-Caddell plan comes down to putting the country above personal ambition. For that reason we know that this will fail.

… But if you had flattered him, if you had told him that there are greater things, that the reason things are going the way they are is because he’s just not challenged, this is just too small, that you can tell he’s bored, you can tell he’s not interested. We all can see that he and Michelle don’t like the White House. They don’t like living there. They would rather be anywhere else. Running this country is so uninteresting to him, so beneath his stature, so beneath his skill set, so beneath his intellect. The world is crying for a leader now, not just America, the world is crying for a leader, a leader that the United States will listen to. Then maybe you guys coulda gotten him to quit.

Latest PJ Media Column (‘Could Ohio Become a Right-to-Work State?’) Is Up

Filed under: Economy,Ohio Economy,Ohio Politics,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:12 am

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Wednesday (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

Bottom line, IMO: Right-to-work (described here) is a fabulous idea. Getting it on the ballot — in 2013 — would be marvelous.

Key stats from the column, based on a review of the past decade’s GDP growth:

  • Nine of the top 12 GDP-performing states are right-to-work. (nine of 11, if you exclude DC, whose growth is predominantly driven by the federal government and not private-sector commerce.
  • The four worst (including Ohio, which came in second-worst and actually slightly shrunk during the decade)) aren’t.
  • Weighted-average GDP growth in the 22 right-to-work states was 21.7%; in the rest, it was 13.6%.

Of course I’m going to suggest that everyone read the whole thing.

‘Occupy’ Update (112111, Morning)

Filed under: Activism,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:56 am

I really thought that items related to the Obama-endorsed (proof herehere, here, and hereOccupy movement would mellow out over the weekend, but there are enough cleanup items (pun intended) to last at least through Wednesday.

__________________________________

At the Smoking Gun (“‘Occupy’ Protester Busted For Stealing Neighbor’s Furniture For Florida Encampment”) — “(Jeffrey) Scott was nabbed shortly after victim Ned English called police to report the theft of a couch, a recliner, four wicker chairs, and four couch cushions from his home.”

__________________________________

PR Daily, November 18 (HT Instapundit) — “… the movement blew it by having no overriding purpose, stated goals, or visible leadership, he says, and it is increasingly perceived as a bunch of publicity-hungry complainers intent on disrupting others who are making a living.” That’s because it is.

__________________________________

John at Verum Serum“Conservative Ezra Levant took an infrared camera down to Occupy Toronto and discovered nearly all the tents are empty.”

__________________________________

Rex Murphy at the National Post — “They are not a cadre speaking up for the vast proportion of the population against the tyranny or greed of an imagined “1%.” Judging from the speakers I have seen and heard, either on news broadcasts or the multiple sites offering live-broadcast or YouTube coverage, the people in the various Occupy camps represent a petty sub-sample of the hard left; i.e., a range of angry students, homeless and their advocates, and – not insignificantly – some just outright strange people.”

__________________________________

At BigGovernment.com (HT OWS Exposed) — “New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested Friday that unions took over the Occupy Wall Street protest yesterday (for Thursday’s Shut Down Wall Street attempt).” Unions have been funding OWS in a major way almost from the get-go.

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (112111)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:00 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

___________________________________

Positivity: Man reunites with woman who saved his life after he stopped to help change a tire

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:41 am

From Eau Claire, Wisconsin:

Published: November 17

A motorist who had a heart attack but was kept alive by a stranger whom just minutes earlier he had stopped to help along a Wisconsin interstate has had a tearful reunion with that woman and the first responders who saved his life.

Victor Giesbrecht, 61, expressed his gratitude Wednesday to Sara Berg, the Eau Claire woman who performed CPR on him just a few miles further along the Interstate 94 from where he had helped her to change a tire.

“He said ‘thank you’ and we hugged, then we both started crying,” Berg told the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. First responders also attended the reunion at Giesbrecht’s room at Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire. Giesbrecht hoped to be released Thursday.

Giesbrecht, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and his wife, Ann, were driving to Indiana Nov. 5 when they saw Berg, 40, and her cousin, Lisa Meier, stopped on the side of the interstate with a flat tire. Giesbrecht pulled over, retrieved a jack from his pickup and helped change the flat.

Minutes after driving away, Giesbrecht suffered a heart attack and lost consciousness. His wife brought their pickup to a stop and called 911. Then along came the women whom Giesbrecht had just helped. When Berg, a certified nursing assistant, discovered that Giesbrecht wasn’t breathing, she started CPR. …

Go here for the rest of the story.