I expended most of my authorial energy today attacking PBS’s Frontline show The Choice 2016, which purported to delve into Hillary’s and Donald’s character to help inform people in advance of the election but which was, in fact, a Hillary hagiography and a Donald hit piece. Still, there are a few more election-related articles I’d like to share with you.
Fact checkers are disguised Progressive advocates. One of my hopes in writing my challenge to the PBS “documentary” is to expose the fact that, even when the Left purports to deal in truth it lies. Nowhere is this point made more obvious than when it comes to the whole genre of fact checkers, almost all of whom are hardcore Progressives. Don Surber makes this point patently obvious when he looks at the way fact-checkers handled Bernie’s statements about black unemployment and Donald’s more accurate statements about the same issue. Fact-checkers are deliberately manipulating data in advance of the election.
Speaking of Don Surber and media bias, I’ve been wanting to tell you forever that you should buy Don’s meticulously researched book retelling the way in which the media — including many in the conservative media, I’m sorry to say (myself included) — were completely wrong every step of the way during the Republican primaries. Don saw from the beginning that Trump was mapping out a new route to the nomination.
The word people, however, the ones to whom exquisitely chosen phrases matter most of all, as well as the usual Leftist political hacks, who cannot understand fed-up Americans, couldn’t see that at all. With almost six weeks left before the election, Don’s book will help you understand what you’re reading in both mainstream and conservative media. The books is called Trump the Press: Don Surber’s take on how the pundits blew the 2016 Republican race, and is priced at a very reasonable $2.99.
Trump ad takes on Hillary’s crazed 50 point rant. The Trump team outdid itself with this short, sweet campaigning ad riffing off of Hillary’s wild-eyed, self-entitled rant about the tremendous insult the American people have given her in this election year, not to mention her insults to Americans, her felonious activity, and her disastrous foreign policy initiatives:
Trump’s Hispanic supporters in California. Despite being an ostensibly welcoming place for Hispanics, both legal and illegal, California hasn’t actually treated its Hispanic immigrants well. In the big cities, their public school educations are abysmal, their communities are dangerous, and their job opportunities limited. In the Central Valley, the Progressives’ policy of placing fish over people, has brought Hispanic field workers into an uneasy alliance with the farmers who once opposed them across the bargaining tables. Both are being destroyed by fish policies. And they, like the rest of Americans, are troubled by 8 years of policies that have seen wage stagflation and increasing numbers of terrorist attacks without our own borders.
So it is that Victor Davis Hanson says that it’s entirely possible to find pro-Trump Hispanics if you know where to look in California. It’s doubtful they’ll turn California blue this election, but their numbers might put a bit of fear into California’s powerful Democrat establishment.
No, you’re not imagining it. Yes, the media is manipulating images of crowds at the candidates’ respective rallies. Once again, Sharyl Attkisson is doing actual journalism. This time, she’s investigating Republican claims that the drive-by media is manipulating images from the rallies for Hillary and Trump in order to make Trump’s crowds seem smaller than they are and Hillary’s larger. This is an important issue because reports on the ground are saying that Trump is drawing people in by the tens of thousands, while Hillary is drawing people in by the barely hundreds. Attkisson says we’re not crazy:
Trump is correct that the news media doesn’t often show his packed audiences. Neither do they remark much about the size of Hillary Clinton’s crowd. Is this because his audiences are large and hers are small?
A quick check shows the news media didn’t hesitate to publish glowing stories on Democrat Bernie Sanders’ crowds. The Washington Post called Sanders’ crowds “eye-popping.” (Trump’s biggest crowds outweigh the ones mentioned as extraordinary in the Sanders article.) Oddly enough, in this August article, the Post noted Trump’s crowds without showing a single photograph of any of them.
Looking at the 2008 election, the news media frequently showed photos of then-Senator Obama’s audiences, which dwarfed those of his Republican candidate, John McCain. There were entire stories about the phenomenon.
“In crowd size, Obama has the edge,” reported the Wall Street Journal, noting that Obama “claimed the Democratic nomination before 17,000 people…with thousands more outside unable to get in,” and ‘That same night, John McCain spoke to about 600 supporters.”
I think this enthusiasm gap matters in the lead-up to the election, which is why the media is lying. Attkisson is more temperate in her conclusion.
Scholars and writers for Obama. A lot of people with careers at stake in business and academia put their names to a statement of support for Donald Trump. In addition to those coming out of the conservative closet, you’ll probably recognize the names of people who long ago openly came out as conservatives. I applaud them although my raising a family in Marin led me to make a different choice.
The point of the statement of support is to show that Trump doesn’t just attract “deplorables.” Of course, I know how the Left thinks: The mere fact that these brave souls support Trump negates all their credentials and professional achievements. They are now officially “deplorables,” voiding the value of their support, and irrelevant to the election.
Did the Clinton Foundation drive Comey’s bizarre conduct in the Hillary investigation? It turns out that both Comey and his brother have extremely close ties (that means $$) with the Clinton Foundation. Did this create an insuperable conflict of interest that Comey ought to have revealed but, instead, hid so that he could carry out an investigation to Hillary’s advantage?
All I know is that months ago I predicted accurately that the FBI would fall in line behind the Obama administration. The weight of middle-class obligations on the agents involved, from Comey on down, would ensure that they would do nothing to rock the boat, even if it meant betraying the American people. I’m actually sorry I was right but definitely not surprised.
If you’re hungry for more political news, please check out WOW! Magazine, the online collaborative magazine from the Watcher’s Council and its friends.