Happy New Year. It's already 2 weeks old, but 'what the hey?', the mass media hasn't changed tactics in 50 years so I'm right on time.
For those of you who have been with me since I started doing commentaries back in 1999, you will notice that the media moguls haven't changed 1 iota. Let's look.
It's What's Not Said that is important
I believe I have pointed this out a few weeks ago, but let's run by it one more time.
SC faithful still seeking GOP candidate By SEANNA ADCOX, Associated Press Writer; Jan 13,2008
For most of you I need not recall your attention to this, but not all of you are right of center.
The faithful in South Carolina are still looking for the Republican presidential candidate who is the answer to their prayers.
Ah yes, the party faithful, and the faithful. Made for the liberal press.
Churchgoers on Sunday at the Redemption World Outreach Center in Greenville to those who attended services at the First Baptist Church in Columbia gave high marks to the four GOP candidates who have spent the most time in the state - Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.
As I said, for most of you it need not be pointed out, but for sake of good order let me draw your attention to the people mentioned. Look also at the order they are mentioned.
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, would seem like a lock for South Carolina's religious voters. The former Arkansas governor, who talks openly about his faith and its tenets, won the Iowa caucuses based on strong support from evangelicals ? eight of 10 who described themselves as evangelical Christians backed Huckabee, according to an Associated Press entrance poll in Iowa.
The media has two Republican favorites. That's what this is all about, helping those two.
In South Carolina, where the GOP votes on Jan. 19, white evangelicals account for 53 percent of the state's likely Republican voters, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Yet, churchgoers remain divided over their choices.
Just a little reminder racial comment there, to subliminally point out that there is a black candidate running out there (and he ain't in
yore pardy Eye).
"I'd be comfortable with four of the six of them," said Steve Folks, 56.
He considers former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani too liberal on social issues and said he "just hasn't connected with" former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon.
Well we know neither one of these 2 are media favorites.
The latest poll showed McCain with a clear lead over Huckabee, who had been the front-runner in most of the surveys until McCain won the New Hampshire primary.
Hmm, a quick read of the polls is in order here. Why, there may just be something to these guys.
Many churchgoers said they support Huckabee, in part because he seems likable. They also cited his willingness to talk about religion. Even those who said they didn't plan to vote for him said they expect him to do well in South Carolina.
"Finally, there's somebody who stands for family values we can trust. And he's a Baptist," said Amy Dillon, 60, as she headed into First Baptist Church, which seats about 4,000 people and broadcasts its services statewide. Huckabee is her first choice, but she said she likes McCain too.
A little reference to the faith and the faithful here. First off, I never knew McCain was a Baptist. Not that that matters all that much. But to the media who are trying to sway the Republican electorate it, it is a BIG thing, for the moment anyway.
Lou Stirrat, 79, said she supports McCain because of his military experience but also likes Huckabee because the candidate emphasizes his Christianity. "We need to bring this country back to square one," she said.
It's tougher for Charlie Moss. He said he's still deciding between Huckabee, Thompson and Romney, someone Moss likes because of his leadership in business. Romney is a former venture capitalist. Moss said he won't vote for McCain because he backed an immigration bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for most illegal immigrants.
Look at that comment real closely. The references here to these 3 candidates are important to the article. In this entire anti-conservative screed there is nothing more than a casual reference to Fred Thompson. Why? Because he is the most conservative, that's why. And the only reason he is even mentioned in this article is because he did so well in last Friday's debate.
The media favorite on the GOP side is McCain followed closely by Huckabee. They think the Dems would have an easier time to beat either of them. The least liked is Fred Thompson, followed by Romney. Both are conservative and both have a lot of solid experience behind them. Remember that W never had a mention in the primaries in 2000. Even when he creamed McCain in South Carolina, you had to scour the internet to find out who won the SC primary. If Thompson wins, the same thing will happen. These liberals are so easy to call.
Sleep well tonight, the UN is on the scene.
Every time I see an article like the next one, I want to laugh. The problem is, however, that it is so damn serious.
Iran agrees to answer nuclear questions;
By
GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer; Jan 13, 2008
I'm sure that the Persians are quaking in there boots right about now.
Iran has promised the U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector it will answer all remaining questions about its past nuclear activities within four weeks, including secret activities the U.S. suspects were linked to a weapons program, officials said Sunday.
Sort of like receiving an assurance from Saddam Hussein, isn't it?
The time limit was announced by the spokeswoman for Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the end of his talks in Tehran with Iranian leaders.
You have to wonder whether or not the Iranians are on the IAEA member taskforce. If you'll go back to Saddam's leadership days, Iraq was a member of the UN's committee on human rights.
Iran is under two sets of U.N. Security
Council sanctions for its refusal to freeze
uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to
nuclear arms, and Washington is pushing for
additional U.N. penalties.
So what!!! Saddam was under violation of 14 UN resolutions when he was in power.
The government in Tehran says it never worked on atomic weapons and wants to enrich uranium only to produce fuel for reactors that would generate electricity.
That's what North Korea told Madelleine Albright, Jimmie Carter and Billie-bob Clinton. So now we're supposed to believe them too?
Announcing the deadline,
Fleming spoke only
in general terms, without mentioning what was
being now probed by agency experts under a
plan agreed to last summer. But diplomats said
that investigation was now in its final stage,
focusing on programs with possible weapons
applications.
The probe originally was slated to be
completed in December, and the United
States and its allies have been chafing at the
delay, say diplomats accredited to the IAEA.
But they are unlikely to object publicly if the
extension allows ElBaradei to reveal details of
such secret programs.
So what's the problem here? Iraq was 9 years behind in their UN compliance demands.
The diplomat said the talks went "very well," adding that - beyond discussing the progress of his agency's probe into Iran's nuclear past - ElBaradei was able to press his case for the need for the country to suspend uranium enrichment, a key U.N. Security Council demand.
Now I can breathe a little easier. He actually was able to "press" his case. No mention at all whether it was accepted or even acknowledged. He was able to "press" his case. I guess that means they allowed him to make mention of the fact to suspend enrichment.
Can we get to the real issue here. Get us the hell out of the United Nations. I'd like to press the case for that.
Grant's Blog is an original
commentary by Grant Freerks. Copyright (c)2008
Grant Freerks.
