There was little suspense with the winners in the 2016 New Hampshire Presidential Primary. Just after the polls closed, the winners were known. Donald Trump easily won on the GOP side, and Bernie Sanders handily defeated Hillary Clinton. Most pundits are most interested in the second through fourth place finishers on the GOP side--especially where Cruz, Rubio, and Bush fall. (See results here.)
However, as of about 11:30 p.m. I believe there is even more interesting news. In 2008 the last time both parties had seriously contested NH primaries, the total GOP vote was 234,851. The total Democrat vote (which saw Hillary beat Barack) was 284,090. Tonight, with 71% of GOP vote in, the republicans have a total of 190,975 votes. With 72 % of the democrat vote in, Bernie and Hillary have totaled 166,516 votes.
This appears to be a major vote total decline for the democrats. Two states into the U.S. Presidential primary process, enthusiasm is not on the democrat side.
(Updates to follow.)
Update (7:10 a.m.): With 88% of the vote counted, GOP total is 258,354. With 89% of the vote counted, Democrat total is 227,543. This looks like its going to be a complete reversal of the vote totals from the 2008 New Hampshire Presidential Primary. Since 1992, New Hampshire has gone for the Democrats in the presidential general election five out of six times (the exception was 2000 when Bush beat Gore). I'm not sure how important is the vote turn-around in the primary (almost no one is reporting on this) and how exactly that will translate to the general election, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Update (9:20 a.m.): The Washington Times is now reporting on this. Its headline:
"GOP shatters its turnout record; Democrats lag behind."
Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Thursday, April 17, 2014
The Games Democrats Must Play
Now that Louisiana Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu’s deceptive
video
ad has been widely
panned,
it is worth noting that her efforts, though somewhat unique, are something that
Democrats across the U.S. are probably going to mimic often this election
cycle. (Is anyone really surprised that today’s liberals would resort to make-believe
to sell themselves?) An excellent case in point is the Senate race in Georgia
While a crowded GOP field battles it out, democrat Michelle
Nunn is raising money and liberal hopes when it comes to the Democrats being
able to hold on to majority power in the U.S. Senate. Nunn’s campaign raised well
over $2 million in the first quarter of 2014. This is more than double the
highest reporting GOP candidate, Jack Kingston.
In the solidly red state of Georgia
As Byron York noted about Landrieu—and as Republicans love
to point out—over 95% of her votes in the Senate have been with Obama. This
is the case with almost every Senate Democrat. As Roll Call reveals, “Every
vulnerable Senate Democrat up for re-election in 2014 voted with President
Barack Obama at least 90 percent of the time in 2013.” The Senate Democrats who
are deemed “not vulnerable” vote with Obama even more frequently.
Thus there is absolutely no reason to believe that Nunn, or
any other Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, would do anything other
than tow the liberal line as (currently) drawn by Obama. Everything from
Obamacare, to a radical energy policy that is predicated upon one of the
greatest myths ever perpetuated upon mankind, to a redefinition of the
institution upon which all cultures rest, Nunn would no doubt fall in line with
the rest of her party.
In addition, Nunn will be beholden to a Democratic Party
Platform that is filled with “intrinsic
evils,” and devoid of any mention of God. She also belongs to the political
party that boos
the very mention of God. Along with supporting abortion at every phase
“regardless of the ability to pay,” Democrats call for laws that guarantee that
“women have access to contraception in their health insurance plan,” which, of
course, we now see playing out before our eyes.
To top it all off, just like Landrieu and the rest of her
liberal colleagues, Nunn would vote for Harry Reid to lead the Senate. To win
the race in Georgia
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Social Issues are really Moral Issues
One of the greatest deceptions perpetuated by the mainstream media concerning the American political scene is that whenever the “social issues” are prominent in election debate, conservatives lose. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote about an upcoming book by Jeffrey Bell—“The Case for Polarized Politics”—that helps dispel this myth.
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” notes Bell. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant “social” issues in America today are sexual issues.
To borrow from pastor, author, and Christian apologist John MacArthur (as I have done before), “Within the moral realm in our society the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.” Abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce, and so on, he adds, are all sexual issues.
Therefore, the phrase “social issues” is a bit of a misnomer. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like are not hot political issues simply because—as the word “social” implies—they relate to people’s personal lives. They are hot political issues because they reside deeply in the moral realm of our culture. We are not debating mere “social” issues; we are debating moral issues.
Being a nation that was “conceived in liberty,”—and for modern conservatism to have so wrapped itself up in the concept of liberty—it is often seen as a contradiction that conservatives wish to “legislate morality.” However, as Edmund Burke (considered by many to be the father of modern
conservatism) noted, “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites…Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.”
Is there little doubt that when these words first came to Burke in the late 18th century, among other things, mankind’s sexual appetite was foremost in his thought? Since our founding we have had laws that govern moral, including sexual, behavior. Our Founders, and throughout our nation’s history, most of our lawmakers and judges understood well Burke’s implication that true liberty cannot exist without those “moral chains” which bind our “appetites.”
For decades now, and with significant success, liberals have fought to break those Judeo-Christian “moral chains” that they have deemed unjustly binding. For example, in late 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling, overturned the Texas sodomy law, and therefore invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia summed up the conservative position well: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' (the 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding Georgia’s sodomy law) validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”
Scalia continued, “The Court embraces… the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” He concluded that, “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
“Laws without morals are in vain,” said Ben Franklin. In other words, all law is rooted in some morality. On morality, C.S. Lewis declared that, “Moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.”
Liberals have not really ended all morals legislation; they are attempting to redefine what is moral. They want to rewrite the “directions” for running the “human machine.”
Consider Europe, where liberals often look for their new marching orders in their war against Judeo-Christian morality. Recently, the UK Telegraph reported that, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”
The Journal’s editor said that those who made “abusive and threatening posts” about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” With such “values” (morals) espoused by the left, is there any wonder that conservatives have been—and I believe will continue to be—successful when it comes to debating the moral issues in America?
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” notes Bell. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant “social” issues in America today are sexual issues.
To borrow from pastor, author, and Christian apologist John MacArthur (as I have done before), “Within the moral realm in our society the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.” Abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce, and so on, he adds, are all sexual issues.
Therefore, the phrase “social issues” is a bit of a misnomer. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like are not hot political issues simply because—as the word “social” implies—they relate to people’s personal lives. They are hot political issues because they reside deeply in the moral realm of our culture. We are not debating mere “social” issues; we are debating moral issues.
Being a nation that was “conceived in liberty,”—and for modern conservatism to have so wrapped itself up in the concept of liberty—it is often seen as a contradiction that conservatives wish to “legislate morality.” However, as Edmund Burke (considered by many to be the father of modern
conservatism) noted, “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites…Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.”
Is there little doubt that when these words first came to Burke in the late 18th century, among other things, mankind’s sexual appetite was foremost in his thought? Since our founding we have had laws that govern moral, including sexual, behavior. Our Founders, and throughout our nation’s history, most of our lawmakers and judges understood well Burke’s implication that true liberty cannot exist without those “moral chains” which bind our “appetites.”
For decades now, and with significant success, liberals have fought to break those Judeo-Christian “moral chains” that they have deemed unjustly binding. For example, in late 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 ruling, overturned the Texas sodomy law, and therefore invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia summed up the conservative position well: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' (the 1986 Supreme Court decision upholding Georgia’s sodomy law) validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”
Scalia continued, “The Court embraces… the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” He concluded that, “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”
“Laws without morals are in vain,” said Ben Franklin. In other words, all law is rooted in some morality. On morality, C.S. Lewis declared that, “Moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.”
Liberals have not really ended all morals legislation; they are attempting to redefine what is moral. They want to rewrite the “directions” for running the “human machine.”
Consider Europe, where liberals often look for their new marching orders in their war against Judeo-Christian morality. Recently, the UK Telegraph reported that, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” argues that newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.”
The Journal’s editor said that those who made “abusive and threatening posts” about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.” With such “values” (morals) espoused by the left, is there any wonder that conservatives have been—and I believe will continue to be—successful when it comes to debating the moral issues in America?
(See this column on American Thinker.)
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Monday, April 11, 2011
Efforts to Defund Planned Parenthood Must Continue
The recent failure of the GOP to achieve the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood should not deter further efforts to remove taxpayer funds from the largest abortion provider in the U.S. In fact, the issue should remain front and center at every level in the 2012 political campaign.
Make no mistake about it, as Jordan Sekulow noted just prior to the latest federal budget deal, Planned Parenthood (PP) owns the Democrats. Therefore, for the Democrats, shutting down the federal government was worth it as long as it ensured continued taxpayer funding for PP.
In the middle of March of this year, when asked about amendments that would defund PP, Harry Reid was quoted as saying “not only no, but hell no.” Just hours prior to the budget agreement, Reid declared that the only issue holding up a budget deal was funding for PP. He declared, “Republicans want to shut down our nation's government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need.”
It’s amazing that a U.S. senator can use the phrase “health services” in describing an organization that is dedicated to ending human life. However, this is how the liberal mind of the leader of the U.S. senate works.
Joining the chorus of PP supporters was the number three ranking Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. “The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate,” said Schumer. Giving his best Winston Churchill impersonation, Schumer added, “Let me repeat that, so all those who want to stomp on women’s health and women’s rights can hear us loud and clear. The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.”
He may be right about this Senate, but the next one will almost certainly be a different story. In the 2012 election, the GOP has to defend only 10 U.S. Senate seats, while the Democrats have to defend 23. Of the 10 seats the GOP defends, six of them are from GOP strongholds (AZ, MS, TN, TX, UT, and WY). Of the other four seats, two have been in GOP hands for at least three election cycles (18 years). The other two seats belong to Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.
Of the 23 Democratic seats (two are actually independents who caucus with the Democrats), three are from GOP strongholds (MT, NE, ND), eight are from states that elected GOP governors in 2010 or 2009 (FL, MI, NJ, NM, OH, PA, VA, WI), and six are from states that elected a GOP senator in 2010 (FL, MO, ND, OH, PA, WI).
Thus, with the Republicans needing to flip only four seats for control, it is highly likely that the GOP will take charge of the U.S. senate after the 2012 elections. (Notice that FL, OH, PA, and WI elected GOP governors and senators in 2010.) If this happens, Republicans should act quickly and make Schumer eat his “never, never, never” declaration.
In light of the current economic climate, there has never been a better political climate for cutting off the over $360 million in federal funds that PP receives. Besides, our federal government has no business being in business with an abortion provider. “But no taxpayer funds are used for abortions—federal law already prohibits that,” PP supporters say. This is an asinine and absurd argument. With around 1/3 of its budget coming from taxpayer funds, it is clear that federal money enables PP to function and do what it does “best:” provide abortions.
Of course, with President Obama on record supporting what many consider infanticide, even if congress passes a bill defunding PP, he would almost certainly veto it. According to The Susan B. Anthony List, almost all current GOP candidates for president support defunding PP. This is an issue that pro-lifers need to keep a significant part of the 2012 campaign. In more ways than one, the U.S. federal government cannot afford its relationship with Planned Parenthood.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Make no mistake about it, as Jordan Sekulow noted just prior to the latest federal budget deal, Planned Parenthood (PP) owns the Democrats. Therefore, for the Democrats, shutting down the federal government was worth it as long as it ensured continued taxpayer funding for PP.
In the middle of March of this year, when asked about amendments that would defund PP, Harry Reid was quoted as saying “not only no, but hell no.” Just hours prior to the budget agreement, Reid declared that the only issue holding up a budget deal was funding for PP. He declared, “Republicans want to shut down our nation's government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need.”
It’s amazing that a U.S. senator can use the phrase “health services” in describing an organization that is dedicated to ending human life. However, this is how the liberal mind of the leader of the U.S. senate works.
Joining the chorus of PP supporters was the number three ranking Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. “The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate,” said Schumer. Giving his best Winston Churchill impersonation, Schumer added, “Let me repeat that, so all those who want to stomp on women’s health and women’s rights can hear us loud and clear. The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.”
He may be right about this Senate, but the next one will almost certainly be a different story. In the 2012 election, the GOP has to defend only 10 U.S. Senate seats, while the Democrats have to defend 23. Of the 10 seats the GOP defends, six of them are from GOP strongholds (AZ, MS, TN, TX, UT, and WY). Of the other four seats, two have been in GOP hands for at least three election cycles (18 years). The other two seats belong to Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.
Of the 23 Democratic seats (two are actually independents who caucus with the Democrats), three are from GOP strongholds (MT, NE, ND), eight are from states that elected GOP governors in 2010 or 2009 (FL, MI, NJ, NM, OH, PA, VA, WI), and six are from states that elected a GOP senator in 2010 (FL, MO, ND, OH, PA, WI).
Thus, with the Republicans needing to flip only four seats for control, it is highly likely that the GOP will take charge of the U.S. senate after the 2012 elections. (Notice that FL, OH, PA, and WI elected GOP governors and senators in 2010.) If this happens, Republicans should act quickly and make Schumer eat his “never, never, never” declaration.
In light of the current economic climate, there has never been a better political climate for cutting off the over $360 million in federal funds that PP receives. Besides, our federal government has no business being in business with an abortion provider. “But no taxpayer funds are used for abortions—federal law already prohibits that,” PP supporters say. This is an asinine and absurd argument. With around 1/3 of its budget coming from taxpayer funds, it is clear that federal money enables PP to function and do what it does “best:” provide abortions.
Of course, with President Obama on record supporting what many consider infanticide, even if congress passes a bill defunding PP, he would almost certainly veto it. According to The Susan B. Anthony List, almost all current GOP candidates for president support defunding PP. This is an issue that pro-lifers need to keep a significant part of the 2012 campaign. In more ways than one, the U.S. federal government cannot afford its relationship with Planned Parenthood.
Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Mahoney Scandal Reveals Media Bias
In September of 2006, while on the verge of the 2006 Congressional midterm elections, Florida Representative Mark Foley was caught up in a salacious sex scandal involving lewd emails and instant messages with congressional pages that resulted in his resignation. The Main Stream Media (MSM) pounced on the scandal, and many pundits believe the scandal contributed significantly to the Democrats regaining control of both houses of Congress in 2006.
On September 17, 2006, about two weeks before the Foley scandal broke, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Democrats and Republicans tied at 48% when voters were asked which party they preferred in congressional races. On October 8, 2006, about a week after Foley resigned from Congress, the same poll had Democrats with a 23 point advantage over Republicans, 59% to 36%.
Of course, there were other contributing factors to the Republican losses, but the Foley scandal was the final nail in the coffin for the GOP in 2006. Other House members suffered in the scandal as well, as it was revealed that several had some knowledge of Foley’s emails and messages well before the scandal broke. This included Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and, as a result, there were calls for his resignation.
The press played a great role in keeping Foley’s fall in the headlines. They asked questions and pressed hard for answers concerning what Hastert and others knew and when they knew it. This is not happening in U.S. Representative Tim Mahoney’s current scandal. If you have not heard of Tim Mahoney, you are not alone. The MSM has been suspiciously quiet in the matter.
Representative Mahoney is caught up in his own sex scandal and, ironically, is the Democrat who, campaigning on a platform of “faith and family values,” won Foley’s seat after his disgraceful fall from politics. Mahoney’s scandal contains curious circumstances that may extend well beyond a U.S. Representative committing adultery, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM’s coverage.
For example, Mahoney paid off his mistress, who was a former staffer, to the tune of $121,000. He claims he paid her with his own money and not campaign funds, but are we simply to take his word for it? His mistress also was given a $50,000-a-year job with the advertising agency that handles Mahoney’s campaign buys.
Also, according to Fox News, Mahoney has admitted to “multiple other affairs.” He has not said specifically how many, but he has admitted to an affair with a high-ranking Martin county official from his congressional district. Fox News added that this affair took place while Mahoney “simultaneously [lobbied] the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give [Martin] county a $3.4 million hurricane clean-up reimbursement. The funds were awarded last year.”
Mahoney has insisted that there was no quid-pro-quo, but again, are we simply to take his word for it? It seems the MSM is at least content to accept Mahoney’s explanations, if not ignore the matter all together. NewsBusters reported that, “though all three broadcast network evening news programs covered the Foley sex scandal when it was first revealed on September 29, 2006, not one of them felt that the man who replaced him admitting to having an affair with a former campaign staffer was at all newsworthy.”
Furthermore, no one seems to be pressing the House Democratic leadership, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chair of the Democratic Caucus Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), on “what they knew and when they knew it.” According to ABC News, Emanuel had knowledge of Mahoney’s affair last year and even confronted him about it.
On September 17, 2006, about two weeks before the Foley scandal broke, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Democrats and Republicans tied at 48% when voters were asked which party they preferred in congressional races. On October 8, 2006, about a week after Foley resigned from Congress, the same poll had Democrats with a 23 point advantage over Republicans, 59% to 36%.
Of course, there were other contributing factors to the Republican losses, but the Foley scandal was the final nail in the coffin for the GOP in 2006. Other House members suffered in the scandal as well, as it was revealed that several had some knowledge of Foley’s emails and messages well before the scandal broke. This included Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and, as a result, there were calls for his resignation.
The press played a great role in keeping Foley’s fall in the headlines. They asked questions and pressed hard for answers concerning what Hastert and others knew and when they knew it. This is not happening in U.S. Representative Tim Mahoney’s current scandal. If you have not heard of Tim Mahoney, you are not alone. The MSM has been suspiciously quiet in the matter.
Representative Mahoney is caught up in his own sex scandal and, ironically, is the Democrat who, campaigning on a platform of “faith and family values,” won Foley’s seat after his disgraceful fall from politics. Mahoney’s scandal contains curious circumstances that may extend well beyond a U.S. Representative committing adultery, but you wouldn’t know it from the MSM’s coverage.
For example, Mahoney paid off his mistress, who was a former staffer, to the tune of $121,000. He claims he paid her with his own money and not campaign funds, but are we simply to take his word for it? His mistress also was given a $50,000-a-year job with the advertising agency that handles Mahoney’s campaign buys.
Also, according to Fox News, Mahoney has admitted to “multiple other affairs.” He has not said specifically how many, but he has admitted to an affair with a high-ranking Martin county official from his congressional district. Fox News added that this affair took place while Mahoney “simultaneously [lobbied] the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give [Martin] county a $3.4 million hurricane clean-up reimbursement. The funds were awarded last year.”
Mahoney has insisted that there was no quid-pro-quo, but again, are we simply to take his word for it? It seems the MSM is at least content to accept Mahoney’s explanations, if not ignore the matter all together. NewsBusters reported that, “though all three broadcast network evening news programs covered the Foley sex scandal when it was first revealed on September 29, 2006, not one of them felt that the man who replaced him admitting to having an affair with a former campaign staffer was at all newsworthy.”
Furthermore, no one seems to be pressing the House Democratic leadership, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chair of the Democratic Caucus Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), on “what they knew and when they knew it.” According to ABC News, Emanuel had knowledge of Mahoney’s affair last year and even confronted him about it.
ABC News also reported that, according to Mahoney staffers, “Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel… have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign.” However, ABC leaves it at that and so have the rest of the MSM.
I realize that media bias is something tossed around quite a lot, especially during an election season. Nevertheless, this situation reeks of bias. Thankfully the FBI is now involved in investigating Mahoney. I wonder how the MSM will feel about itself if the FBI upstages it in revealing the truth in this matter. I suppose it won’t feel too badly as long as nothing comes out before November 4.
The MSM kept the Foley scandal in the headlines up to the 2006 election and beyond. The liberal leanings of the MSM are no secret, and this is certainly further evidence. One popular talk-show host has referred to 2008 as “the year journalism died.” Looking the other way in Mahoney’s case may have been the “final nail” in journalism’s coffin.
Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
I realize that media bias is something tossed around quite a lot, especially during an election season. Nevertheless, this situation reeks of bias. Thankfully the FBI is now involved in investigating Mahoney. I wonder how the MSM will feel about itself if the FBI upstages it in revealing the truth in this matter. I suppose it won’t feel too badly as long as nothing comes out before November 4.
The MSM kept the Foley scandal in the headlines up to the 2006 election and beyond. The liberal leanings of the MSM are no secret, and this is certainly further evidence. One popular talk-show host has referred to 2008 as “the year journalism died.” Looking the other way in Mahoney’s case may have been the “final nail” in journalism’s coffin.
Copyright 2008, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)