Posts

Fox News Republican Debate: Trump’s Absence Sucks the Energy Out of the Room, Leaves Three Winners and Two Losers

/2 Comments/in , /by

The intentional winner of the Fox News Republican debate Thursday night was Marco Rubio. He had a really good debate. He was substantive and sharp, clear and polished. He came across as likable. He came across as someone who knows foreign policy.

The accidental winner, though, was Ted Cruz. The debate got off to a rough start with Cruz. The other candidates were piling on the man in the center seat. His campaign had expected it. His engagement with the moderators made him seem less likable. But the moderators, unintentionally and accidentally, solidified Cruz’s support for him and got fence sitters between Trump and Cruz off the fence . . .

Jeb Bush had a far better night without Trump there. I was surprised there was not a clash with Kasich, given his rise in Iowa. But Bush held his own and Kasich annoyed as always . . .

Overall, though the debate had lower energy than prior ones, it was wonderful to have the candidates have to own their records.

As for losers, that had to be Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, who had their “kneel before Zod” moment showing up at a Donald Trump rally where everyone treated Donald Trump as the conquering hero. (Read more from “Fox News Republican Debate: Trump’s Absence Leaves Three Winners and Two Losers” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is the Expected Question Fox News Started the Debate With [+video]

/3 Comments/in , /by

Fox News host Megyn Kelly began Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate with a softball, asking Ted Cruz to “address the elephant not in the room.”

Kelly, who has been at the center of Trump’s feud with Fox News, asked Cruz to comment on the party front-runner’s decision to skip Thursday’s contest, which has cast a shadow over the final debate before Monday’s caucuses.

Cruz, Trump’s main rival to win on Monday, responded with a series of comments highlighting Trump’s style of insulting his opponents.

“I am a maniac,” Cruz said. “And everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly . . .

“Now that we’ve got the Donald Trump portion out of the way,” Cruz joked, he wanted to thank the people of Iowa for showing him and his family great hospitality over the last year.” (Read more from “This Is the Expected Question Fox News Started the Debate With” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More Allegiance to Liberals, ‘Alinksy-Like Tactics’ Cruz, Rand Spar with Rubio on NSA, Immigration

/3 Comments/in , /by

By Ian Hanchett. Republican presidential candidates Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz and Kentucky Senator Sen. Rand Paul sparred with fellow candidate Florida Senator Sen. Marco Rubio on the NSA and immigration during CNN’s prime GOP presidential debate.

Cruz said that the USA Freedom Act, “ended the federal government’s bulk collection of phone medadata of millions of law-abiding citizens. But number two, and the second half of it that is critical, it strengthened the tools of national security and law enforcement to go after terrorists. It gave us greater tools, and we are seeing those tools work right now in San Bernardino. And in particular, what it did, is the prior program only covered a relatively narrow slice of phone calls. When you had a terrorist, you could only search a relatively narrow slice of numbers, primarily landlines. The USA Freedom Act expands that, so now we have cell phones, now we have Internet phones, now we have the phones that terrorists are likely to use, and the focus of law enforcement is on targeting the bad guys. You know, what the Obama administration keeps getting wrong, is whenever anything bad happens they focus on law-abiding citizens, instead of focusing on the bad guys. We need to focus on radical Islamic terrorists, and we need to stop them before they carry out acts of terror.”

Rubio responded that Cruz is wrong, along with others who voted for the act. He added, “This is radical jihadist group that is increasingly sophisticated, and its ability, for example to radicalize American citizens, and its inability to exploit loopholes in our legal immigration system. It’s ability to capture to hold territory in the Middle East, as I outlined earlier, in multiple countries. This is not just the most capable, it is the most sophisticated terror threat we have ever faced. We are now at a time where we need more tools, not less tools. And that tool we lost, the metadata program, was a valuable tool that we no longer have at our disposal.”

Cruz answered, “I would note that Marco knows what he’s what he’s saying isn’t true. You know, Mark Levin wrote a column last week that says that the attack ads his super PAC is running that are saying the same thing, that they are knowingly false, and they are in fact Alinsky-like attacks like Barack Obama.” (Read more from “More Allegiance to Liberals, ‘Alinksy-Like Tactics’ Cruz, Rand Spar with Rubio on NSA, Immigration” HERE)


_________________________________

AP FACT CHECK: Republican Debaters Go Astray

By Associated Press. A look at some of the claims in the latest Republican presidential debate and how they compare with the facts:

JEB BUSH: “We need to embed our troops in the Iraqi military.”

THE FACTS: The U.S. is already doing that.

U.S. special forces are working side by side with Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State militants and American military advisers and trainers are working with Iraqi troops in various locations. To be sure, Bush has called for an intensification of the military effort in a variety of ways, but debate viewers would not know from his comment that U.S. troops are already operating with Iraqi and Kurdish forces. (Read more from “AP FACT CHECK: Republican Debaters Go Astray” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rubio vs. Paul vs. Cruz on Foreign Policy [+video]

/1 Comment/in , /by

After many years without a clear direction on foreign policy, Republicans are now engaging in a robust and healthy debate over principles related to national defense and military intervention.

Unlike conservative domestic policy, which is clearly directed by ideological principles of governance within the confines of the Constitution, U.S. foreign policy is more complex and contains a broader philosophical approach. There is no single doctrine to fully dictate the particulars of all foreign policy initiatives or questions of military intervention. Foreign policy decisions are ultimately governed by prudence and discernment based on the subjective assessment of each individual conflict and how it affects the strategic interests of America and our allies. The aforementioned assessment must weigh the potential costs and benefits through the prism of likely outcomes.

In recent years, right-leaning commentators and media figures have discussed competing foreign policy visions in broad and vacuous terms, offering false choices between so-called neo-conservatives vs. libertarians, hawks vs. doves, or interventionists vs. isolationists. But these labels fail to capture the reality of the decisions America must confront.

Most mainstream conservatives are not Ron Paul libertarians who rule out supporting a robust foreign policy to combat emerging threats to our strategic interests, such as Islamic terrorism and the growing threat from Russia and China. At the same time, most conservatives (and most Americans across the board) reject the notion that we can or should spread democracy to the Arab world and engage in nation-building, especially in countries that lack the building blocks of a civil society. The challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the colossal disaster of the Arab Spring, have certainly laid waste to the democracy project we see today in the Middle East.

Due to the after-effects of 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, what we are seeing within the Republican Party are three predominant camps forming, most prominently on display through the informal doctrines of three presidential candidates: Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.

THE PAUL LIBERTARIAN CAMP

It would probably be more accurate to ascribe the following foreign policy views to Ron Paul rather than Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) simply because the younger Paul seems to be “evolving” on many foreign policy issues.

At its core, this capital “L” Libertarian view is seemingly rooted in the belief that Islamic terrorists and terror-supporting regimes only hate America because of endless U.S. interventions in their part of the world. Many in this camp argue that if only the U.S. military would stop engaging in either projections of military power or the use of soft power against them, and the U.S. would end its overt support for Israel, America would not be facing an existential threat from Islamic Jihad.

Not only do the Paulites oppose any military intervention in the Middle East, they vehemently oppose the use of soft power and sanctions against Iran. They also typically believe our military and defense spending are well over the line of what is necessary to defend national security.

As Rand Paul’s CR Presidential Profile highlights, the lowercase “l” Libertarian view that defines Rand’s foreign policy is best described as “realism.” Rand Paul is a staunch advocate of U.S. sovereignty and has consistently opposed sending aid to nations hostile to the U.S. However, Paul has exhibited questionable positions that are cause for concern for conservatives including his support for Obama’s call for normalized relations with communist Cuba and his opposition to new sanctions on Iran.

THE RUBIO/GRAHAM CAMP

Senator Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) foreign policy views are rooted in the notion that Islamic terror is an existential threat. However, much like Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), he believes that the way to combat the threat is by getting involved in Islamic civil wars and attempting to spread democracy. Yesterday, Rubio delivered a major foreign policy speech unveiling the “Rubio doctrine.”

We must recognize that our nation is a global leader not just because it has superior arms, but because it has superior aims,” Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, intends to say. “As president, I will support the spread of economic and political freedom, reinforce our alliances, resist efforts by large powers to subjugate their smaller neighbors, maintain a robust commitment to transparent and effective foreign assistance programs, and advance the rights of the vulnerable, including women and the religious minorities that are so often persecuted, so that the afflicted peoples of the world know the truth: the American people hear their cries, see their suffering, and most of all, desire their freedom.

It is clear that Rubio feels the U.S. has a responsibility not only to combat Islamic terror through the spread of democracy via interventions, but has an obligation to get involved in other regional skirmishes on behalf of persecuted minorities or bullied nations.

To that end, Rubio has supported the Arab Spring interventions, such as the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi. He also supports a “boots on the ground” intervention in Syria and the arming of the Syrian rebels along with an endless flow of foreign aid to many Arab countries and rebel armies.

Rubio’s CR Presidential Profile provides the full spectrum of his foreign policy record and position on national defense. He has made a name for himself in conservative circles as a leader on foreign policy as a result of his calls for decisive U.S. action against the Islamic State, his unyielding support for Israel, spearheading the passage of the Venezuela sanctions and introducing legislation that would place further sanctions on Iran and Russia. Unlike Senator Paul, Rubio – a Cuban-American – sees the dangers of normalizing relations with Cuba and has been an instrumental leader in sounding the alarm on the president’s plans. However, the profile also details his eagerness to support involvements in civil wars that have often strengthened Islamic groups instead of weakening them.

THE CRUZ CAMP

To some, Cruz appears to be charting a new course that is neither “isolationist” nor “neo-conservative.” But in fact, he argues that there is nothing new about his views, as they represent the authentic Reagan approach to foreign policy – one that emphasizes ‘peace through strength’ with robust defense, control of the seas, and effective use of soft power, but one that also eschews endless interventions and nation building.

As Cruz said Tuesday night on Fox News’ Kelly File, “Our military’s job isn’t to transform foreign nations into democratic utopias — it’s to hunt down & kill terrorists.”

The Cruz contemporary foreign policy is rooted in the same starting point as Rubio’s in that the threat of Jihad is viewed as the consummate challenge of our time. However, those subscribing to the Cruz doctrine vehemently opposed the Arab Spring interventions, not because of isolationist sensibilities, quite the contrary, they would argue that opposition to tossing out relatively secular dictators is the true “hawkish” position. Cruz would contend, much like Rand Paul, that those interventions helped strengthen the Islamic terrorists.

The foundation for this view is built on the premise that there are two equally serious threats to our national security – Sunni Jihadists and Shiite terror groups and regimes, most prominently, Iran. As such, every foreign policy decision in the Middle East has to be weighed against the logical outcome of how it strengthens or weakens one or both of those threats.

In the case of Libya, supporters of intervention swapped a nasty dictator, albeit a man who kept the radical Islamists in check, for a power vacuum that has been filled by ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Highlighted in his CR Presidential Profile, Cruz’s foreign policy record is one of the most impressive especially given his short tenure in the Senate. He has consistently led efforts to impose stricter sanctions on Iran and Russia, is a firm supporter of Israel, and continues to be a leader calling for the U.S. to take action to combat terror from the Islamic State without engaging in a protracted ground operation.

In Iraq, Cruz recently said that the 2003 invasion and regime change, in retrospect, was a mistake. This is because Saddam Hussein, although a brutal dictator, was in fact the only person who served as a counterbalance to both existential threats – Sunni Jihadists and Iran. It is certainly clear that Obama’s reckless pullout led to a quicker rise of ISIS and Sunni jihadists, but it is unlikely that the Iraq story would have ever ended well regardless of Obama’s actions. Even before Obama’s irresponsible withdraw, Iraq had become a proxy for Iran. Was it worth expending 4,500 of our finest soldiers plus over a trillion dollars to deliver Iraq into the hands of Iran?

Moreover, even without Obama’s pullout, it would have been hard to stem the tide of Sunni insurgents in the face of Iranian Shiite dominance. U.S. “leadership” and the spread of democracy will never hold these volatile and unstable countries together without eastern countries standing against them and their radical Islamic terror regimes. Now we are seeing the vacuum being filled by entities that pose a much graver threat to us than Saddam Hussein did over a decade ago.

It is this guiding lesson from the Iraq war that is fueling the view of the Cruz faction that the U.S. military should stay out of the civil war taking place in Syria and parts of Iraq. With a tangled web of Iranian-backed Assad forces, al-Nusra, ISIS, and dubious or ineffective “Syrian rebels” engaged in conflict, there is no good outcome for U.S. strategic interests. With Iran and ISIS fighting each other in Iran, why risk our lives and war chest to tip the scales to one side, only to see that side eventually become the next volatile regime? Why not let our two biggest enemies slug it out? It is for this reason that Cruz would oppose any boots on the ground beyond decisive air strikes against those threatening the Kurds or Christian minorities.

The aforementioned view can best be described with the following doctrine: A president should only use military force if the end result will bolster our allies and weaken our enemies, preferably when those allies have built a civil society and have their own military for which our efforts will result in a positive outcome and territory gained or preserved for our allies.

But while Cruz would take a hands-off approach to some of the Islamic civil wars, he is as hawkish as they come on Iran. That is because Iran represents an existential threat and is responsible for killing more U.S. soldiers since 1979 than any other regime. And the remedy here, unlike in other geopolitical conflicts, is not to referee a civil war and nation-build a balkanized country; it is the effective use of soft power through sanctions, freezing assets, control of the seas, and other covert activity at our disposal.

This also explains why the Cruz camp wants to bulk up our military, increase our deterrent power and control over the seas, but save a lot of money by refraining from endless national-building escapades that have cost the U.S. trillions. It’s why Cruz often cites the Reagan paradigm of increasing defense spending but never wasting money and lives with protracted military interventions. After all, as Cruz also frequently points out, Granada was the largest country Reagan invaded during his tenure.

Those subscribing to this worldview also believe that securing our border and limiting the immigration of security threats is at least as vital, if not more important, than any projection of power overseas. The same certainly cannot be said of the Rubio, Graham, and McCain camp.

If nothing else, the fact that conservatives are now debating some of the past and present foreign policy decisions is a welcome development. A lack of coherent principles on domestic policy has gotten Republicans into trouble in the past. Although foreign policy is more complex, it would be wise for the party to develop some cogent principles before they reassume power as the governing party. (For more from the author of “Rubio vs. Paul vs. Cruz on Foreign Policy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s Who Won the Last Republican Debate; Donald Trump Rules Twitter

/15 Comments/in , /by

By Chris Cillizza. The eight top Republican presidential candidates gathered for the fourth debate of the 2016 campaign Tuesday night in Milwaukee. It was a more understated affair than the last GOP debate sponsored by CNBC but still managed to yield some bests and worsts.

Here are my winners and losers from the night: . . .

* Ted Cruz: For the second straight debate, the senator from Texas shone under the bright lights. His line about the tax code having more words than the Bible was a good and memorable one. His repeated denunciations of Washington’s “crony” culture will leave a lot of Republican heads nodding in agreement. Cruz proved Tuesday night that of the “outsider” candidates, he is the one best equipped to carry their message going forward.

* Ben Carson: In the first three debates, I watched in wonder as Carson’s numbers kept moving up after what I perceived to be nearly nonexistent performances. But Carson — from his first answer on Tuesday night — was more energetic (that’s a pretty low bar given Carson’s past performances) and more dialed in than I had seen him. He was helped by a moderator question on his past exaggerations/inaccuracies regarding his life story that would give the term “softball” a bad name. And by the fact that none of his rivals seemed interested in taking the fight to him on the issue of the inconsistencies of his recounting of the past. Carson was, as usual, very shaky on foreign policy and wasn’t much better on regulatory reform. But he did more than enough to keep himself at or near the top of the GOP field . . .

[The losers:]

* Donald Trump: Trump, as he has in each of the first four debates, stood center stage in Milwaukee on Tuesday night. But for the two-plus hours that the debate ran, Trump felt ancillary to the conversation. When he did get time to speak, he simply repeated his now-familiar lines — we don’t win anymore, I have a great company, etc. — and little else. His answers on foreign policy were not good. His random attack on Fiorina — “why does she keep interrupting everybody?” — earned him boos from the crowd (and helped her). Trump just didn’t seem all that interested in being there. It likely won’t affect his poll numbers, since nothing seems to. But that doesn’t change the fact he was off his game.

(Read more from “Here’s Who Won the Last Republican Debate” HERE)

___________________________________

Donald Trump Rules Twitter During GOP Debate

By Justin Wm. Moyer. Donald Trump still rules. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) are treading water. Gov. John Kasich (Ohio) and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) are much improved. And former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina trails the pack.

So judged Twitter after Tuesday evening’s Republican presidential primary debate in Milwaukee. As it has after previous presidential primary debates, Twitter sliced and diced its big data on eight of the GOP candidates — and Democratic rivals who weren’t even on stage — in an attempt to determine who won and who lost the online conversation.

First: Here were Twitter’s “most mentioned candidates on Twitter, with share of debate conversation”:

Businessman Donald Trump: 24 percent (compared with 22 percent after last month’s debate in Boulder, Colo.)

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush: 12 percent (compared with 11 percent last month)

(Read more from “Donald Trump Rules Twitter During GOP Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans Are Furious With CNBC Over What They’re Doing to the Next GOP Debate

/4 Comments/in , /by

A nearly 90-minute conference call between CNBC and representatives of Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday turned heated over a CNBC decision regarding the next GOP primary debate.

Many of the Republicans complained about a CNBC plan to drop opening and closing statements to allow more time for questions from moderators at the event, scheduled for Oct. 28 at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The plan was included in a memo the network distributed prior to a conference call that claimed the campaigns had already agreed to the format change, Politico reported.

Eliminating opening and closing statements would allow a more “free flowing discussion, lively candidate interaction, fair treatment of all candidates,” the memo stated, according to Politico.

But during the call, it was clear the campaigns weren’t going along.

The first to object was Ed Brookover, a campaign strategist on the Ben Carson campaign. Two sources on the call told Politico that Brookover threatened to take his concerns public. (Read more from “Republicans Are Furious With CNBC Over What They’re Doing to the Next GOP Debate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Joe Miller Wins Crowd at the Alaska Family Action Debate

/2 Comments/in , /by

IMG_1972

Eagle River, Alaska. August 5, 2014 – Joe Miller demonstrated at the Alaska Family Action debate on Monday why he has strong grassroots support among conservatives in the state. Miller drew contrast with the other candidates on the issues of amnesty, life and same-sex marriage.

The debate moderator, Tom Minnery – President of Citizenlink, questioned Miller concerning his definition of amnesty. Miller stated that it includes giving the benefits of citizens—a pathway to citizenship–to those who entered our country illegally. He pointed out that Mead Treadwell supports a pathway to citizenship, and Dan Sullivan is backed by big amnesty proponents including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Senators John McCain and Susan Collins. Sullivan did not refute that amnesty money is behind his campaign, nor did he take the opportunity to state clearly his views on amnesty. Treadwell affirmed he does support a pathway to citizenship for illegals, but he conveyed as long as illegals didn’t get a “free pass” and “paid a penalty,” that is not amnesty.

Concerning the right to life, Miller noted he is the only candidate endorsed by Alaska Right to Life and both of his primary opponents blocked pro-life ballot initiatives during their terms in office. Sullivan and Treadwell stated their positions required them to follow the law, and Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. Miller pointed out Treadwell had previously said the Constitution protects life from conception. He then asked, “Was your oath to the Constitution or to the Supreme Court?” Treadwell declined to respond.

Miller stated both his opponents supported Lisa Murkowski in 2010, who is a pro-abortion senator. Minnery also made the audience aware of Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich’s recent vote for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which seeks to expand abortion availability nationwide.

Minnery, asked the candidates whether they had any exceptions to their pro-life stand. Sullivan stated he supports exceptions for rape and incest. Treadwell supports an exception for the life of the mother. Miller responded, “I don’t think we ought to be talking about about exceptions, we ought to be talking about life. We save every life we can…We protect those liberties God has given us. The foremost of which is life.” That principle applies to saving the life of the mother, if both cannot be saved. Miller pointed to the example of pro-life advocate Rebecca Kiessling, as one who was conceived in rape who would not be among us, if that exception were to be followed.

He also offered the example of a family supporting the campaign, whose adopted son, Aaron, was the result of the rape of a teenage girl. Miller said, “Why are we going to punish the sons and daughters for the fathers’ sins?” Aaron is now grown-up, with four children of his own, director of sales for their family business (which filed an amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case.) “These are real life stories. You talk to Aaron, he would say this is a real world issue. This is me standing here flesh and bone. Why would you punish me and my right to life for the sin of another?…” Miller’s remarks on this issue drew perhaps the strongest applause and approval from the crowd during the debate.

On the topic of same-sex marriage, both Treadwell and Sullivan seemed to hedge on their support for traditional marriage, stating they would uphold the Alaska law. Sullivan went on to say that “it is an issue that is very fluid right now…” Treadwell said it is a “sacrament of the church” and that government should not be regulating it or “baptism either.” Miller made clear he supports traditional marriage: “It is the foundation of culture. It is our civilization” and “something government should encourage.”

“Joe Miller once again turned in a winning debate performance,” said Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto. “He is the only true conservative in the race able to unite the Reagan coalition of traditional values and fiscal conservatives.”

Joe Miller is a husband, father, grandfather, combat veteran, and advocate of Constitutional liberty who believes in individual rights, private property, free markets and the sanctity of human life.

Miller Changes Minds with Debate Performance

/2 Comments/in , /by
GOP US. Senate Debate Anchorage – Aim, Inc.

Joe Miller turned in a strong performance at last night’s GOP U.S. Senate debate in Anchorage. The event was was sponsored by KVNT and KOAN and organized by the Anchorage Republican Women’s Club. One political analyst, who had been a critic and published an article with Politico this past spring stating why Miller could not win, reversed course.

During a TV news interview following the debate last night in Anchorage, he described Miller’s performance as “impressive” and when questioned who won said, “To be honest with you, I believe Joe Miller helped himself the most. I plead guilty to writing him off a year ago. But his candidacy is alive and well. I thought his performance tonight really showed that.” His conclusion, “It’s anyone’s race.” This analysis matched those of other pundits and attendees of the debate.

“Joe established himself as the true principle-driven constitutional conservative in the race and demonstrated why he is the one best able to take on and defeat Mark Begich this fall,” said Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto. “He is committed to going to Washington and helping reverse our nation’s current disastrous direction. His two Establishment opponents’ record and even campaign rhetoric point to a willingness to play the Washington game.”

Major differences on amnesty, the role of international law, the future of the IRS, and foreign policy came into clear relief during last night’s debate. Miller opposes amnesty, believes our Constitution must remain the unchallenged law of the land (and that we must not yield to the forces of internationalism). As someone who has seen war, Miller believes our military must be the strongest on earth and used only in defense of our vital national interests. He does not believe the Founders intended for us to be involved in nation-building: the price in life and treasure is too high, and the results are often contrary to our country’s intended goals. Miller’s opponents stand on the opposite side on these issues. (View a candidate comparison HERE.)

In his closing statement, Miller responded to the question why he is running for U.S. Senate stating, “If America falls, there is no place else to go.” We must preserve this last bastion of liberty for ourselves and future generations.

You can listen to the debate HERE.

7 Questions That Will Determine the Outcome of the 2012 Election

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo credit: DonkeyHoteyThe debates are over, and although most of my fellow pundits were quick to tell us before they started that historically they don’t impact the eventual outcome, this time they certainly have.

This race hasn’t been the same since the first debate. Mitt Romney’s rout of a beleaguered and bored-looking Barack Obama dramatically altered the trajectory of the race from leaning strongly to the president to a toss-up/leaning Romney. The president bounced back somewhat in the second debate, and was much stronger in the final debate Monday night, but he’s still not been able to regain the momentum he lost in the first debate in Denver.

If Romney goes on to win this election that first presidential debate will go down as the biggest debate game changer in modern American political history.

So with the debates concluded, the campaign has now entered its final phase. The popular vote is trending Romney, but the Electoral College remains razor close and the president still has more routes to 270 than Romney does—although Romney’s path is much easier than it was at the beginning of October.

Heading down the stretch, the answers to these seven questions could determine the eventual outcome:

1) Will there be an October surprise? For example, the president clearly has a foreign policy edge over Romney, so could there be an unforeseen circumstance on the global stage that gives Obama one last chance to appear as a strong leader? Something like a rogue nation such as Iran doing something to insert itself into the election if it thinks it can handle an Obama second term more easily than a President Romney? Another potential October surprise could be the final two economic forecasts before the election, which will be on the rate of growth and unemployment. Will there be much more robust or negative numbers there when par for the course is expected? Or could it be something totally unforeseen, like George W. Bush’s revealed long-ago DUI on the eve of the 2000 election, which nearly cost him enough votes to give Al Gore the presidency?

2) Will the automobile industry bailout be the marriage amendment of 2012? In 2004, an instate fight for an amendment protecting marriage on the ballot in Ohio helped George W. Bush massively turn out the evangelical vote in that state, catapulting him to the win there and thus re-election. This time the Democrats are hoping an important but under-the-radar issue like the automobile industry bailout can do the same for Obama. The bailout wasn’t popular for Republicans, which is why Romney opposed it during the primaries, but it remains popular in Ohio. The Buckeye State is Obama’s firewall. With Ohio he stands a decent chance of denying Romney’s path to 270 Electoral College votes, and no Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio. On the other hand, if Romney wins Ohio it’s probably game, set, and match for the Obama Regime. This issue gives Obama his best chance of accomplishing that task, because he has no other record of economic achievement to run on.

3. Which base is more energized come Election Day? For much of this election cycle Democrats have been more energized than Republicans, who have been disappointed in the lack of leadership they’ve seen from many of the folks they just voted for in the Tea Party uprising of 2010. However, Romney’s rout in the first debate energized Republicans more than Democrats for the first time in 2012. Democrats have been trying to reignite that spark. Will Obama’s win in the final debate do it? Will something happen in the final two weeks that will do it? With so few undecided voters in this election, an energized base is even more vital. Obama is going to dominate traditional Democrat groups like blacks and Latinos, and Romney will dominate traditional Republican groups like evangelicals. Neither candidate has much cross-over appeal to the other’s base, which Obama was able to peel off some from John McCain in 2008. Without that cross-over appeal base turnout is even more important. Therefore, it won’t be the percentage each candidate gets of that group that matters as much as it will be the actual turnout of those groups.

4. What kind of coat-tails will each candidate have? For example, could a strong Romney win in Missouri ironically carry the embattled Todd Akin across the finish line there? Republican Linda McMahon has run a good campaign in Connecticut, but could she get swept up in Obama’s win in that state? Currently, Real Clear Politics is forecasting 10 U.S. Senate seats as toss-ups. Four of those are in states that Romney will likely win, two of them are in states Obama will likely win, and the rest are in true battleground states that could go either way. To get to 51 in the U.S. Senate, and thus repeal Obamacare, the Republicans need to win 8 of those 10 toss-up Senate seats. That is a tall order, and more than likely not possible without Akin’s seat in Missouri, which the party establishment still refuses to assist with.

5. No one else wants to say it, but since I’ve made a career out of saying stuff others don’t want to openly talk about I will. Between ACORN, the Secretary of State project, lack of Voter I.D. laws and lack of enforcement of voter fraud laws already on the books, and recent elections featuring districts and towns with more registered voters than the census says lives there, there is widespread anticipation from conservatives the Democrats are prepared to cheat if necessary. The progressive mantra seems to be “if you’re not cheating you’re not trying.” We know a multitude of attorneys were poised to invade Wisconsin for the Scott Walker recall, but he won “outside the margin of cheating” so it was a moot point. If we’re right to be paranoid about this, then Romney will need to win a state like Ohio by more than 2 points, or outside the margin of cheating. If it’s closer than that zany high jinks are sure to ensue.

6. Obama clearly won the third and final debate, albeit not in the same dominant fashion that Romney won the first one. The third debate also had the fewest viewers, and many polls showed folks’ minds weren’t changed by the debate either way. After the debate, I talked to Republicans I know around the country whose job it is to get Republicans elected. Two schools of thought emerged:

Optimism—The race is trending Romney’s direction, therefore he was wise to play it safe and say nothing that risked changing the subject from a referendum on Obama, which it has been since the first debate. Foreign policy debates always favor the incumbent, so all the challenger has to do is come across as a credible commander-in-chief. All the polls show that Romney did that.

Pessimism—Romney is playing prevent defense with the game still in doubt, and he may have peaked too soon in the polls. Remember in the primaries when a candidate surged as the “flavor of the month” only to be dropped by the voters later? The same thing could happen to Romney if he keeps playing it safe and let’s Obama off the hook on issues like Libya.

We won’t know which one of these schools of thought is correct until a winner is declared on November 6th.

7. Will any of the three wildcards play spoiler in the election?

Wildcard #1—Battleground states Nevada and Iowa each have strong libertarian/Ron Paul factions that aren’t enamored with Romney. Could Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson siphon enough votes from Romney to alter the outcome there?

Wildcard #2—The battleground state of Virginia features a rare third party candidate that has actually won multiple major elections there. Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode has been elected as a U.S. Congressman in Virginia as a Democrat, Republican, and an Independent. Goode received more than 157,000 votes in his last Congressional campaign in 2008. Obama won the state by 6 points four years ago, which was about 236,000 votes. Thus, you can see how much of an impact Goode can have on a razor close race there.

Wildcard #3—More than 30 states began early voting before the first presidential debate. How many of those voters were independents that couldn’t be swayed by that debate because they had already voted? We won’t know until Election Day.

_____________________________________________
You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook and follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow. To learn more about his nationally-syndicated radio show, go to www.stevedeace.com.

The Media vs. America

/7 Comments/in , /by

At a recent conference sponsored by Accuracy in Media, Democratic pollster and pundit Pat Caddell said that the media is “the enemy of America.” He wasn’t kidding. While conceding the media’s longstanding liberal bias, Caddell said that media outlets “crossed some lines” recently. He specifically accused them of suppressing critical national security information following the deadly September 11 attack this year in Benghazi, Libya, merely to protect President Obama from embarrassment:

The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people [emphasis added].

The Benghazi episode is only the latest example of media malpractice. There are countless examples stretching back years. Bill Clinton’s end-run around presidential appointee background checks allowed the Communist Chinese widespread access to critical classified military technology, a story the media largely ignored to our great peril (see Bill Gertz’s book Betrayal). Even media preoccupation with Clinton’s sexual scandals sought to downplay them and ridicule his enemies. Suppressed stories from the 2008 elections could fill books, and they have.

This is an entrenched, systemic problem, and it exists whenever and wherever the Left sees an opportunity to influence the public. For instance, the debate moderator for this year’s vice presidential debate was ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz. How many Americans know she had a special guest at her 1991 wedding to current FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski; namely, longtime Genachowski friend and Harvard classmate, Barack Obama? ABC News did not feel the need to mention this before the story broke at DailyCaller.com. Afterwards, ABC defended its choice by noting that Genachowski and Raddatz have been divorced since 1997.

So what’s the problem? It didn’t concern the Commission on Presidential Debates, which chooses debate moderators. Raddatz, after all, is no different from the other moderators, all pulled from the Left media and reliable Democratic defenders: CNN’s Candy Crowley, CBS’s Bob Scheiffer, and of course Jim Lehrer of PBS, a network that receives millions a year in federal subsidies.

Crowley’s behavior while moderating the second presidential debate was arguably even more egregious than Raddatz’s. During the Oct. 16 debate, Crowley interrupted GOP candidate Mitt Romney 28 times. She interrupted Obama only 9 times, and four of those were necessitated by Obama’s refusal to respect time limits.

The most brazen interruption came near the debate’s end. GOP candidate Mitt Romney said “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” President Obama interjected, saying “Get the transcript.” Amazingly, Crowley assumed the role of fact-checker in addition to moderator, and told Romney he was wrong. The problem is he wasn’t.

At the White House on Sept. 12, Obama said an anti-Islam video had provoked the attack. Obama said what happened in Benghazi was “a terrible act” and promised that “justice will be done.” He didn’t say the events in Benghazi were instigated by terrorists. He restated longstanding U.S. policy, saying “no acts of terror would shake the resolve of this great nation.” Over the following two weeks, the Obama administration continued to resist calling the events in Benghazi a terrorist attack.

After the debate, Crowley acknowledged on CNN that Romney had been right all along but blamed him for not speaking with sufficient precision. Romney “was right in the main, but I just think he picked the wrong word,” said Crowley.

The Commission on Presidential Debates apparently didn’t have a problem with Candy Crowley either. But then the Commission has problems of its own. A run down of the Commissioners reveals a stacked deck of Obama supporters and longtime Democrat insiders including Antonia Hernandez, former president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF, an illegal alien advocacy group); Howard Buffett, son of billionaire Obama supporter Warren Buffett; former Citigroup chief and Obama pal, Richard Parsons; early Obama supporter and former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman, Newton Minow; Ted Kennedy Senate replacement appointee Paul Kirk; and others. The Commission co-chair is Mike McCurry, President Clinton’s former press secretary.

Republicans are pathetically represented by two ancient, former Republican senators, Alan Simpson and John Danforth. Simpson earlier this year called himself a Republican in Name Only, and Danforth trashed his party when interviewed in May by the left-wing website ThinkProgress.org. The Republican co-chairman, Frank Farenkopf, once headed the Republican National Committee but now is a casino lobbyist who endorsed his pal Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2010. Fairness and balance, Democrat-style.

Meanwhile Commission Director Janet Brown, another RINO Washington insider, worked on Danforth’s Senate staff in an earlier day. Brown has directed the Commission for its entire 25-year history. She makes a cool $249,000 annual salary for arranging a few presidential debates every four years. Nice work if you can get it, but guess what? You can’t.

But back to Julius. Obama appointed Genachowski to head the FCC in 2009 after he had worked on the presidential campaign. Genachowski brought us the policy of “net neutrality,” which promises unprecedented and unwanted federal government intrusion into the internet. His imposition of this new rule, like many promulgated by this administration, has been challenged for violating both the will of Congress and the courts (see “Pew and the Gang Ride Again,” Foundation Watch, April 2011).

Significantly, Genachowski visited the White House 81 times between January 2009 and November 2010, while net neutrality was under consideration. The FCC’s Democratic commissioners adopted new net neutrality rules in December 2010 over the objections of their Republican counterparts, who noted that a federal court had earlier declared the FCC had no authority to issue such edicts.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) questioned the FCC’s independence, considering the huge number of White House visits, which Issa said equaled the combined visits of the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security, and State within the same timeframe. Might Genachowski have recently arranged some pre-debate “coaching” of his ex-wife before the debate? It would not be difficult to believe. She certainly allowed Vice President Biden to rudely interrupt and talk over Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan throughout the debate, and frequently stopped Ryan from finishing his thoughts.

In that debate and the first and second presidential debates, all the moderators allowed the Democrat on stage to have several more minutes to talk than the Republicans.

The George Soros-funded Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW; 2010 revenues, $2.6 million) also sent a letter to Genachowski last May, demanding that he pull Fox News’ FCC license because of the controversy embroiling Fox’s parent NewsCorp in Great Britain. Genachowski said he takes such complaints “seriously.” (https://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/226513-fcc-takes-very-seriously-calls-to-pull-foxs-broadcast-licenses).

Soros has pulled out all the stops to influence American news media. While pushing officials to move against Fox publicly through CREW, Soros was also instrumental behind the scenes in getting Glenn Beck removed from Fox. His subtle methods may have included direct threats to Fox employees. But Soros and his leftist allies have sought to influence news more directly. Soros money funds a number of influential nonprofit media enterprises, including the notorious left-wing attack group Media Matters, ProPublica, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s ThinkProgress blog.

Think Progress
The radical website ThinkProgress is a project of the Center for American Progress’s Action Fund (CAP AF). Its objective is to “advance progressive ideas and message through traditional news media along with on-line reporting….” The Fund also works with “citizens” and executive and legislative branch policymakers to “impact the national debate and transform progressive ideas into policy.…”

It bills itself as “non-partisan,” but the Center for American Progress is the brainchild of former Clinton and Obama advisor John Podesta. It is a far-left organization whose board includes former Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.); Aryeh Neier, president emeritus of Soros’s Open Society Institute; and Progressive Insurance magnate Peter Lewis. (The recently deceased subprime mortgage magnate, Marion Sandler, served on the board at the time of her death.) Former members include self-described communist Van Jones and Obama’s “Global Warming Czar” Carol Browner, who also served for eight years as Bill Clinton’s Environmental Protection Agency director.

As a staffer for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Podesta helped Leahy develop the tactic of smearing and filibustering Republican judicial nominees, a practice previously unknown in Washington, according to DiscoverTheNetworks.org. He is also the author of what has come to be known as “Project Podesta”:

Project Podesta enabled the President to bypass Congress through the use of executive orders, presidential decision directives, White-House-sponsored lawsuits, vacancy appointments to high federal office, selective regulatory actions against targeted corporations, and a host of other extra-constitutional tactics. In short, Podesta showed the Clintons that they could gain by force what they might fail to achieve through legislation.

As then-Clinton White House aide Paul Begala told the New York Times in 1998, “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.”

ThinkProgress editors and writers compose a who’s who of left-wing journalism. Editor Judd Legum is the former research director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Deputy editor Igor Volsky is a former Russian national who co-wrote presidential candidate “Screamin’ Howard” Dean’s socialized medicine proposal. Other writers have been culled from staff of Keith Olbermann, Al-Jazeera—the English language voice of the Muslim Brotherhood— the Sierra Club, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), and other notable examples of the unhinged Left.

They call ThinkProgress a “blog,” and it has won awards for blogging. But that is kind of like calling North Korea’s Olympic Teams “privately funded amateurs.” Similarly, ThinkProgress is a well-endowed, professional organization with highly paid “bloggers.” Its Action Fund took in a cool $9.4 million in 2010. Despite its nonprofit status, the Fund netted $1.5 million after paying all its expenses for two years running. For each of the past four years at least, the Fund has seen its assets rise by 16 percent.

Think Progress’s Joseph Romm edits their “Climate Progress” blog (thinkprogress.org/climate). According to CAP AF’s 2010 tax return, Romm earned a salary of $136,241. Other “bloggers” are similarly compensated. CAP president Podesta, takes $55,000 a year from this subsidiary, in addition to the $274,000 a year he earns from CAP. Those two revenue streams alone put him near the dividing line for the demonized 1%. Like most fans of income redistribution, Podesta assigns himself a generous portion of the wealth the redistributionists always seem eager to spread around when it is someone else’s money.

For most real bloggers, on the other hand, maintaining a blog is the work of an individual or sometimes an ad hoc collection of volunteers. The only revenues generated are from the occasional ad and the generosity of readers. It is a labor of love and dedication, not a business. Few attempt to obtain nonprofit status and make no phony pretense at being “nonpartisan.”

Conservative bloggers receive little, if anything for their efforts, aside from being vilified by the cash-rich crybabies of the Left as “far-right extremists,” “stooges of big oil,” or the Southern Poverty Law Center’s favorite: “Hate Groups.” These are all defamatory smears, which conservatives rarely have the resources, time, or inclination to challenge in court.

CAP AF reveals little of their funding sources, but according to the 990 tax returns of their parent organization, Center for American Progress, most of CAP AF’s revenues ($5.4 million in 2010) come directly from CAP. CAP in turn receives big money from the usual suspects.

Board member Marion Sandler, who died this June, had paid a lot for her seat on the CAP board. According to Foundation Search, the Sandler Foundation gave CAP a whopping $24 million between 2005 and 2011. George Soros’s Open Society Institute and Foundation to Promote Open Society contributed $5.5 million for that period. The various Rockefeller funds provided $4.6 million. Ford added another $2.5 million. Tides kicked in a mere $1.2 million. Obama’s old Joyce Foundation offered $863,000.

A lot of investment houses “invest” in CAP too. The charitable funds of Charles Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, and Goldman Sachs sent a combined total of $4 million during this period. These monies came from “donor-advised funds,” in which individual investors indicate where they want their money donated. Sometimes fund advisors assist with these decisions, sometimes the choice comes from the individual donor; so either the donors are ignorant of CAP’s radical designs and leftist advisors have cleverly “advised” them to steer money into left-wing organizations, or the donors know what they’re doing, and a lot of leftists are actually 1 percenters. No big surprise there. Still, it’s amazing that investment company dollars find their way into the coffers of those who wish to end the free enterprise system.

ThinkProgress like the rest of the left-wing commentariat shows incredible blindness to facts when it comes to defending its narrative. As I write, the Middle East is in an uproar, the president is doubling down on Big Bird. Yet ThinkProgress devotes its front page to Solyndra; not to dig into this multi-million-dollar corruption scandal, but to declare Solyndra and the Obama administration innocent simply because no one could get them to admit they are guilty!
(https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/10/987251/exclusive-special-interest-groups-spent-nearly-11-million-on-solyndra-attack-ads-since-april/)

Meanwhile, Solyndra is just the tip of the crony-capitalist scandal iceberg. One of the latest revelations finds that the administration’s infamous TracFone Wireless cell phone giveaway program directly benefits the president’s political supporters. TracFone president Frederick Pollak has given more than $365,000 to Obama and the Democrats since 2007. His wife is a bundler for the Obama reelection campaign, having raised over $1.5 million for him since 2007; $632,000 in this cycle so far. TracFone receives a subsidy for participating in the program.

This is classic Chicago style corruption: you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours. Where is CAP AF on this scandal? Nowhere to be found. Even though the FCC’s Genachowski admitted earlier this year that waste and fraud was occurring in the giveaway program because some people were obtaining multiple “free” phones.

Similarly, the Soros-funded CREW can’t seem to find anything wrong with the Obama White House, despite its stated mission to “ensure government officials—regardless of party affiliation—act with honesty and integrity and merit the public trust.” CREW spares no expense, however, in attacking Republicans. CREW has issued a call to “End Secret Spending by Tax-Exempt Groups.” That might be a good idea if CREW included groups like CREW, which doesn’t disclose its donors. But they have other things in mind.

The CREW website features a project titled “Dark Money” focusing on those few corporations that provide funding for non-leftist causes. One of its entries breathlessly describes how, for example, AETNA Life Insurance Company has contributed more than $3.3 million to the American Action Network (AAN) and nearly $4.5 million to the Chamber of Commerce.
(https://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/entry/melanie-sloan-end-secret-spending-by-tax-exempt-groups)

AAN, which CREW describes as a “shadowy 501(c)(4) organization,” describes itself as an “…‘action tank’ that will create, encourage and promote center-right policies based on the principles of freedom, limited government, American exceptionalism, and strong national security.” Now that is scary!

AAN is run by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), a moderate Republican who even earned good marks from some unions and liberal groups (https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/20239#.UHhx2sXA9CM). Coleman, you will recall, lost his 2008 re-election bid to comedian Al Franken after a dubious recount vote presided over by the Soros-supported, ACORN-connected Secretary of State Mark Richie. No wonder the Left is so upset. Don’t expect we’ll be hearing much about that election from CREW though. (https://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163#.UHiXja5iTHo)

CREW participated with ProPublica in a New York public radio program discussing “Dark Money and Big Data”. (https://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/entry/revealing-dark-money-and-big-data) But CREW receives quite a bit of “dark money” itself. In 2010, CREW received $415,000 from Soros foundations. This represented 16 percent of CREW’s 2010 revenues. In 2008, Soros donated $300,000. PBL Fund, a philanthropy of Progressive Insurance magnate Peter B. Lewis, donated $396,354 to CREW in 2008. The Gill Foundation, “Advocates for LGBT Equality,” has provided a total of $426,000 since 2006. The Tides Center and Tides Foundation have together contributed $300,000 since 2002. CREW’s expenses were $2.8 million in 2010 against revenues of $2.6 million.

ProPublica
Interestingly, ProPublica also runs a “Dark Money” project, and focuses on, you guessed it, those bad Republicans, and how they are spending money to win elections. Its website mentions the usual suspects: the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Americans for Prosperity, Crossroads GPS, the American Future Fund, and others. Included is only one obscure Democrat group promoting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (https://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare)

Most of ProPublica’s “investigations” serve to promote the Left’s narrative but do not necessarily shed light on anything. For example, its research on the foreclosure crisis focuses on the role of banks, and largely ignores the fundamental cause: a decades-long leftist effort to force banks to provide home mortgages to uncreditworthy customers. Another example: the “Detention Dilemma” category focuses on the plight of Guantanamo Bay terrorists and their alleged torture at the hands of their American captors.

ProPublica’s 2011 revenues were $10.1 million. In the past two years it has received $14.5 million from the Sandler Foundation. It also receives funds from George Soros’s Foundation for an Open Society, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Ford, MacArthur, and donor-advised fund donations from Schwab and Goldman Sachs. (For more on ProPublica and its backing by subprime mortgage bankers Herb and Marion Sandler, see the May 2009 Foundation Watch.)

Media Matters
Perhaps the most notorious of Soros’s media propaganda vehicles is Media Matters for America. They do not so much write stories as rebuttals. And they rove the Internet, waiting to pounce on anyone willing to criticize Democrats. Furthermore, this is not performed in a dispassionate, circumspect manner, but with a snarky, childish “gotcha!” tone. Recent entries include:

* Rush Limbaugh joins the attack on moderator Martha Raddatz. (Will we be next?)
* What Wisconsin journalists want you to know about Paul Ryan.
* Fox Seizes On Out-Of-Context Quote To Defend Jobs Numbers Conspiracy. (So it’s a conspiracy now?)
* Tucker Carlson, Still Confused About Media Bias

And so forth. The attack on vote fraud expert John Fund is a good example of Media Matters’ style. At David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in November 2009, Fund erroneously cited Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) as co-sponsoring a plan to enact nationwide universal voter registration, along with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). (https://www.examiner.com/article/what-the-dems-know-that-we-don-t-universal-voter-registration).

“Universal voter registration” would automatically register names on public databases to vote. In addition to its unconstitutional aspect, universal voter registration would create a nightmare of verification and duplication problems, leading to unprecedented voter fraud. Given their campaign to resist voter integrity efforts and their valiant defense of ACORN, we know that leftists don’t object to vote fraud.

But John Fund committed a cardinal sin. According to Media Matters, he lied, because he said that Barney Frank was the bill’s co-sponsor, when in fact it was Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). An article by this writer and others followed suit, so we promoted the lie! Actually, Fund issued an apology, I issued a correction, and that was that. Simple mistake. Anyone could make it. But to the fever swamp at Media Matters, it was a conservative conspiracy to match the CIA plot to kill John F. Kennedy.

Media Matters also receives funding from the usual suspects. George Soros’s Foundation to Promote an Open Society donated $675,000 in 2010 alone. The Sandler Fund provided $400,000 over two years. The Tides Foundation has provided $3.5 million since 2003, most coming between 2008 and 2010. Tides is a donor-advised fund and its many donors do not want to be publicly identified as supporting Media Matters.

The Pritzker Family Foundation donated $400,000 between 2007 and 2009. Hotel and finance magnate Penny Pritzker is an Obama insider and was finance director for his 2008 campaign. The Picower Foundation provided $100,000 in 2008, shortly before the fund was discovered to have received most of its endowment from the Bernard Madoff scheme. The Picower family has since returned to authories a record $7.2 billion for its role in the scandal. As with CAP AF, the investment firms of Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, and Vanguard passed along a combined $763,000 to Media Matters between 2005 and 2010, even though it’s hard to imagine investment firms existing for long if Media Matters’ policy agenda were completely implemented.

So is there no accountability? What about the supposedly “nonpartisan” Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio?

In the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney said to moderator Jim Lehrer, “I’m sorry, Jim, I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I love Big Bird—I actually like you too—but I am not going to keep spending money on things [we have] to borrow money from China to pay for.” The comment set off a firestorm. The social media site Twitter recorded 135,000 “tweets” [comments] per minute. (https://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/presidential-debates-10-million-tweets_b29439)
But Romney’s point was not about Big Bird and Sesame Street, which only received about 5 percent of its 2010 funding from federal subsidies and prospered through millions of dollars in product sales and private donations. Romney’s point was about PBS and its parent, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which partially funds independent PBS stations all over the country.

CPB’s annual appropriation from Congress runs about $0.5 billion annually. It won’t put much of a chink in our $16 trillion national debt, but the government is saturated with these small, unnecessary, and often redundant programs. They add up.

In addition, despite its supposedly “nonpartisan” charter, public television is, if possible, even further to the left than broadcast TV and the newspapers. Brandon Darby is a case in point. Darby was a movement leftist who had an epiphany when he realized that the Left serves no one but itself, and creates more problems than it solves for the people it claims to help. Darby saw this firsthand during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when he spent extensive time in New Orleans’ ninth ward assisting in recovery efforts. Leftists thwarted his efforts at every turn, and even threatened him, because he wasn’t doing things their way.

Still perceived as an insider, Darby continued to obtain information from other radicals regarding their various machinations. At one point he learned that radical leftists planned to firebomb the 2008 Minneapolis Republican National Convention, and he decided to penetrate the group as an FBI informant. Thanks to his brave efforts, potential murder was averted, and the Left’s other efforts to disrupt the convention were stymied.
For his trouble, Darby was the subject of slanderous attacks in the press, led by an article in the New York Times that accused him of provoking the bombings. Darby sued and the Times had to issue a retraction.

The New York Times has fallen far from covering only the “news that’s fit to print,” if it was ever actually there to begin with. Today the Times fits right in with the anarchist Occupy movement. One of its reporters covering Occupy was discovered actually participating in the planning and execution of Occupy protests and was arrested in New York along with other Occupy activists. (https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/10/23/New-Video-Reveals–New-York-Times-Reporter-Natasha-Lennard-Is–OccupyWallStreet-Activist–Supporter)

Public radio ran a story on Darby called “Turncoat.” For the Left it was actually a relatively balanced piece, including many segments of an interview with Brandon. But in the end, the piece could not resist blaming him for the conviction of the two would-be bombers. The narrator explained that Darby could have used the wisdom gained by years of activism to convince the others to renounce violence. (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/381/turncoat?act=2)

Finally, PBS produced a Point Of View film titled “Better This World,” which received an Emmy nomination and other awards. PBS describes the film:

Better This World follows the radicalization of these boyhood friends from Midland, Texas, under the tutelage of revolutionary activist Brandon Darby. The results: eight homemade bombs, multiple domestic terrorism charges and a high-stakes entrapment defense hinging on the actions of a controversial FBI informant. Better This World goes to the heart of the war on terror and its impact on civil liberties and political dissent in post-9/11 America.

This film once again reiterates the false narrative first reported by the New York Times. (https://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/povdocs/2012/09/emmy-2012-watch-best-documentary-nominee-better-this-world/).

America is facing a crisis of misinformation from an unscrupulous minority bent on replacing our republican form of government with its largely self-serving socialist vision. We are funding much of this with our own tax dollars. That funding should dry up. If the Left wants to participate in the marketplace of ideas, it can do so on its own dime.

Pundits characterize the mass media as “in the tank” for Obama, or Clinton, or whoever is the anointed left-wing public figure of the day. But the media is not “in the tank” for anyone. Leftists strategize endlessly on how to capture and manipulate public opinion, whether it be in media, or public institutions or on college campuses. They are proactive and relentless. The media don’t follow anyone. To the contrary, today’s mass media executives are key leaders in the far left movement. Everything they do is calculated on the prospects for capturing hearts and minds. They are not opposed to deception, and we should not be entirely surprised at the lengths to which they will go.

But as John Adams wisely said, “Facts are stubborn things.” The truth has the annoying habit of sticking with us when we hear it, because it usually rings true. As long as we have the capability to bring truth to the public, our Republic stands a chance. If the Left continues to successfully overwhelm us with propaganda and lies, and continues using the organs of government to misinform and silence us, the fight will be over and we will lose.

_________________________________________________________________

James Simpson is an economist, businessman, and freelance writer. His writings have been published in Accuracy in Media, American Thinker, Big Government, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, FrontPage Magazine, and elsewhere.