JOHN RIEWE

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Hillary's Memory Fuzzy, Misremembers Treacherous (?) Visit to Bosnia in '96

leave a comment »

CBS does a bit of a hit job on Hillary with this piece, especially focusing on the sweet little girl that greeted her on that day in ’96. But then, Hillary earned every bit of it. Yet another reason I am almost 100% certain she will be bested by Obama. And another lesson in how trying to act like 1990s Bill when you aren’t Bill leads to disastrous results.

Advertisements

Written by John Riewe

March 25, 2008 at 1:11 am

Rush Also Notices Cheap Shot!

leave a comment »

My daily scanning of the airwaves yielded no mention today of the unflattering photo of Hillary that headlined the Drudge Report yesterday, but obviously in failing to tune into the EIB network I missed Rush’s treatment of the subject. See Rush’s transcript here.

Written by John Riewe

December 18, 2007 at 2:41 am

Cheap Shot

leave a comment »

Drudge Report is hailed/reviled for its alternative approach to the news. I hit it probably a hundred times a day myself. Some have accused it of leaning slightly to the right. Some have dissed its brashly unhip graphics. At any rate, the Drudge Report has led with mild sensationalism on occasion, but never has sunken to checkout-line tabloid-esque levels of cheapness to the best of my memory. Until now. What renders this truly a below-the-belt hit in the mind of americanrevolution is that the unflattering photo and caption are not even linked to a story.

hillary-on-drudge.jpgThe

Written by John Riewe

December 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

Thompson to Run on '08, Sources Say

leave a comment »

fredthompson_msnbc.jpg

Today’s Brian and the Judge radio show, co-host Brian Kilmeade reported that Fred Thompson–the Great Hope for Republicans disenchanted with 2008 Presidential race frontrunners Giuliani, McCain, and Romney–will indeed throw his hat into the ring later this year. Kilmeade claimed to have spoken to someone as “close to Thompson as his wife,” who said that Thompson “definitely will run,” but not until September. No reason was stated for the late entry, which provides a great source of speculation.

 americanrevolution is most definitely in the business of speculation on such things, and sees things in the Thompson case thus: This is a risky move with potentially big payoffs. Why is it risky? Well, as the pundits quipped on Brian and the Judge, all the best campaign personnel will already have been snapped up by the frontrunners. Furthermore, to begin fundraising in the fall and well after many key contributors will already have made donations to the existing frontrunners will present a hurdle as Thompson begins filling the war chest. These are all valid concerns. However, a late entry in the race does offer several advantages. First, with the highly abbreviated attention span of the American public by way of the media, Thompson will present a somewhat fresh face at a point when the buzz surrounding the current crop of contenders will be fading somewhat. Furthermore, Thompson will have time to watch Giuliani, McCain, Romney, etc., and to craft his image to represent a strong alternative to those guys who disappoint so many conservatives. Furthermore, he will by entering the race immediataly gain the support of far-right conservatives who refuseto stomach the pro-abortion Giuliani, the Mormon Romney, and the confusing maverickishness of McCain.

 So if he can overcome the aforementioned hurdles, which are rather substantial, he may just have something. americanrevolution is interested first to see if the report of Thompson’s September Splash is true, and if so how things will play out.

CIA Chief Drops the Ball, Throws Bush & Co. Under the Bus To Clear Name

with one comment

Former CIA director George Tenet has been a handy scapegoat for Bushites looking for someone to blame for missteps in Iraq. His infamous “Slam Dunk” characterization of the connection between 9/11 and Iraq purportendly made Bush, Cheney, and Company’s decision to attack Iraq–as if no other deliberation was involved in the President making the grave decision to commit US troops belligerent action. To blame Tenet for Iraq is bogus. And Tenet is tired of it. So, in the greatest American tradition, the much-maligned former CIA director is releasing his tell-all book and making the talk-show circuit. Tenet is obviously working to clear his name by playing the “I did my job but the White House roughed me up to hear what they wanted to hear” card. That’s all well and good. He has been unfairly utilised as a pinata by the Bushigentsia. But the problem is the that other than his lofty post, Tenet is no superstar and no portrait of smashing success. It bears stating for those evaluating the impact of Tenet’s revelations a few truths. First, Tenet took his post at the CIA in 1997 under President Clinton. During Tenet’s tenure the US faced the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and of course 9/11. While the CIA has been a mess since the end of the Cold War (or perhaps before), one would expect such a venerable agency to not act entirely inept at spying on Islamic extremism. So I suggest that Tenet may have a legitimate beef with being a scapegoat for Iraq, but maybe his poor record with the agency should be examined before we join his pity party.

Written by John Riewe

May 1, 2007 at 4:12 am

Double Standards of Political Correctness

with one comment

Funny how the response to what is said is determined by who says it. Let’s be honest-if a Republican commented that Barack Obama, the fresh young Senator from Illinois, is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” well, the media, the DNC, the intelligentsia-heck, just about everyone-would waste no time in demanding an apology, and the more extreme factions within each of the aforementioned groups would be haughtily muttering accusations of racism just above their collective breaths. It obviously insinuates that prior to Mr. He’s-so-hot-right-now Obama’s rise to prominence, there existed no clean-cut and competent African American statesmen. That’s a pretty unequivocable slap in the face of the African-American community and beyond.

And yet, it was not a Republican congressman who remarked such. It was 2008 Presidential hopeful Joe Biden, a Democratic congressman from Deleware (CNN).  Now two weeks later, the incident seems to be all but forgotten. But it was not the only recent racially-insensitive remark by a congressman this month, and indeed another Democrat. South Carolina’s Robert Ford proclaimed earlier in the month that “Obama winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party…Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he’s black and he’s at the top of the ticket” (Associated Press). Ford summed it up rather nicely: “I love Obama, but I’m not going to kill myself.”

Even if these remarks are made by Democrats in the context of Obama’s impact on the party, they still should provide a grand display of the mass hypocrisy of the party that claims to be the party of the minorities, the poor, the middle class, and of tolerance. If a Republican were to stand up and say Obama could not win the Presidency because he is Black, they would be burned in effigy. Somehow, these utterances from Democratic lips are easily forgiven and forgotten.

For reference, consider two historical cases. Republican Trent Lott made a racially-insensitive remark in 2003 and was forced to resign his post as majority leader in the Senate. Conversely, Robert Byrd, a documented Ku Klux Klan leader until at least the late 1940s, became in 2006 the longest serving Senator in US history (Wikipedia). Yes, he was a Democrat.

As long as Democrats can get away with publicly-voiced disrespect for African-Americans, no progress will be made toward a time where when we mention the Senator from Illinois, the parenthetical notation of his race is no longer obligatory. That, my fellow Americans, should be the real story here.

www.barackobama.com

Written by John Riewe

February 24, 2007 at 3:24 am

Enough!

with one comment

americanrevolution is completely and utterly fed up with the news story that is gripping the nation. Not by the conclusions being drawn, nor a liberal slant that permeates the coverage. No. Something else makes the story utterly odious. That is, that it receives coverage at all. The story? The Great Tragic Saga of Anna Nicole. americanrevolution is of the opinion that the news–and correspondingly the attention of the populace–should focus on things that actually affect life, liberty and pursuit of American happiness. The outcome of the Anna Nicole debacle, quite simply, matters not one iota. A visiting foreigner would probably think otherwise if they picked up the current issue of Newsweek, which sports a banner advertising its Anna Nicole special inside, or flipped on Fox News last night to see Greta Van Susteren’s hourlong special on the Anna Nicole trials.

This ridiculous fixation speaks to two things. First, it underlines the fact that the media is not in it to inform, rather, the media is in it for the money; and dirty laundry sells. Second, it strongly suggests where Americans’ priorities lie. This story is best left to the entertainment media. I don’t want it headlining my news. Pardon the crusty demeanor, but this one just annoys the heck out of me.

Your opinions are welcome.

Written by John Riewe

February 22, 2007 at 3:02 am

Posted in Anna Nicole, Fox News, Media