Conservative Voice

This one was too irresistible. I have feeds from the NYT Business Pages on my Yahoo page, just to give me a chuckle now and then. The NYT headlines are almost always significantly more depressing than any of the other liberal news organizations.

Today’s first two headlines really exposed their bias:

NYT > Business
 Bernanke Offers Bleaker View on U.S. Economy - one hour ago
 Stocks Edge Higher on Bernanke Remarks - one hour ago

So, the NYT’s spin on Bernanke’s latest comments are “bleak”. Actually, “Bleaker”, with reference to other comments Bernanke had given in the past. Their article is a depressing piece to read, when in fact, Bernanke’s comments weren’t all that bad.

The truth about Bernanke’s statements are found in the very next NYT headline. This one is about data – the stock market. They can’t lie about data. The markets were up based on Bernanke’s remarks. So the people with money – the ones who are doing the most analysis on the economy, saw optimism in Bernanke’s remarks. Which, if you read all his remarks, is the conclusion anyone without a liberal agenda would make.

It turns out strong evidence has surfaced that Obama is not a fanatical, Christian-hating Muslim after all. Apparently he has been attending the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for twenty years. The Trinity church is famous now because of the exposé on its preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who, by the sound of his recorded messages over the last several years, seems to hate America and white people. This reverend baptized Obama’s kids, and married Barrack and his wife. So Obama is not a fanatical Christian-hating Muslim – he’s a fanatical America-hating and white-hating Christian!

This could be a daily, ongoing post. It’s just unbelievable how reporters today have no etiquette or ethics. Here’s the latest evidence. Liz Sidoti, a “reporter” from AP, was traveling on the campaign bus with John McCain. McCain says to the reporters that travel with him that if he can’t convince the American people that we’re succeeding in Iraq, then “I lose”. He then immediately said, “Let me not put it that stark,” and went on to explain what he meant, that basically Iraq would be a crucial issue, and then added, “I’d like to retract ‘I’ll lose’.”

So what does the reporter do? She writes an entire story on a two words that McCain asked be retracted, having explained what he meant immediately thereafter. And what do the soulless editors do? Make the quote a headline and lead with it.

This is just such incredible dishonesty in reporting. They don’t even try to hide their liberal allegiances and biases. This wasn’t a major policy speech or a debate. This was just having a conversation with reporters on the bus. And it’s the lead story of the day?

I’m going to make a guess that a deal was done last week. Although McCain and Romney seem to dislike each other very much, consider these points:

McCain could use a smart guy that actually understands the economy and how things work in the real world. He could also use someone that more conservatives like, even though not all of them like Romney. And he needs someone younger and presidential, since he’ll be two years older than Reagan at his first inauguration.

In the past week, Huckabee has been talking a lot about how he has no expectation of getting a VP invitation. He’s also seemed to be more critical of John McCain in the past week. This could be because they are the only two candidates left in the competition, but he can’t really still think it’s a competition anymore. So maybe it’s because he now realizes he’s not getting the VP nod.

Rudy Giuliani doesn’t want to be second fiddle.

Romney dropped out very suddenly. He knows there are millions of Republicans in future primaries that want to vote for him. Why would he drop out so suddenly? His answers didn’t seem to explain it.

Romney doesn’t need to be president this time around. He could use some Washington experience, even though he’d like to come in as a fresh outsider.

Could it be that McCain went to Romney and said, “We’re killing each other and it’s counter productive. By the end of the season, we will have only convinced every conservative that neither of us is conservative. Huck is a nice guy, and he has been kissing up to me, but he’s not the right guy for the job. Drop out now, and you’re the man.”

If Hillary and Obama were smart, they’d work out a Pres/VP deal as well. They would be a hard ticket to beat. Of course, it would only work if Obama can humble himself and accept working for Hillary.

Huckabee’s heart might be in the right place. He might be an honest man who wants to do what’s right for the country. I believe George Bush’s heart is in the right place as well, but in the next election I would rather have someone less like George Bush, and more like Giuliani or Romney – with the brains, experience and leadership ability to steer the country the right direction on the important issues. And most importantly, someone who can beat the Democrats in the general election. Having said that, as unpopular as George Bush is with the media and the Angry Left, he sure continues to do an amazing job of getting what he wants. The Democrat-controlled congress just keeps authorizing more funds for the war. Remember when they got elected on the “mandate” to end the war and bring home the troops? Instead of ending it, Bush got them to extend it and approve MORE troops! They love to bash him, but Bush really does continue to lead in the right direction. Imagine electing someone who is like him in the sense that he’s right on all the issues, but also has more charisma, sounds smarter, give better speeches, and is able to unite and lead the country at the same time instead of being such a target for mockery and anger. It could be a great next four years. Which brings me back to Huckabee. He’s not that guy. He’s a fluke that may spoil the chances of more qualified candidates. And isn’t it interesting that the man everyone considers a Christian says the most unchristian-like comments about the man some don’t believe is a Christian, who responds in a Christian-like manner? Very ironic. Huckabee complains about Romney going negative when all Romney does is accurately highlight Huckabee’s horrible record. Whereas Huckabee attacks Romney’s character, honesty, and religion. Who is the actual negative, attack candidate?