The power of George W. Bush.

Hat Tip -Doug Powers.

I've come to the conclusion that former President George W. Bush is the most powerful man in the entire world, and he doesn't even know it. Over the past few years I've heard that George W. Bush, who seems just like a regular guy from Texas, has used his superman powers to cause hurricanes, earthquakes, and even snowstorms.

The power of hick Texans is astronomical!

When President George W. Bush left the White House 18 months ago, most expected his superman powers, besides for causing Al Gore to divorce Tipper, would be of no further use. However, it appears the superman President has a new weapon to wreck havoc in the world:

That's right! According to some Conservative bloggers, the pre-release "leakings" of his Book to the Main Stream Media will cause Republican candidates across the Nation to lose, because just the mention of the superman President will cause fear to spread across the US and will send all voters back to the Hope and Change Express.

I'm not kidding, some members of the Conservative blogosphere are actually accusing George W. Bush of planning to release information to the Press regarding his memoir/book before the mid-term elections, in order to hurt Republican chances at the voting booth.

Paranoia or what?

Goodness! George W. Bush is a lifelong Republican, and trust me, he is more than aware of the fact that Republican candidates will be distancing their campaigns from him, even though polls have indicated Bush's approval rating has gone up from basement levels, voters are split 50-50 as to whether America would be better with a Bush or Obama White House, and billboards with Bush's face have appeared across the Nation in support of him.

If Republicans fail to recapture the House this November, it's their fault, not President Bush's.



Consider advertising on our site!

Interview With NewsReal

Jumping in Pools is proud to present its 89th interview in our ongoing series. Today we're interviewing David from NewsReal, one of the sites determined to ferret out media bias and trends. We want to thank him for taking part in the interview and ask you all to check out NewsReal and to bookmark it!

1. When/why was NewsReal created?

NRB was first created in March of 2009. Its original and primary objective was to promote Discover The Networks, the Freedom Center's online database of the political Left. The publication really started growing and developing in August, though, when I came on as a full-time editor devoted to it and the Center decided to start growing it seriously. Since then our purpose has expanded. Now we work to promote all of the Freedom Center's projects and also to inject the DHFC's unique perspective into the debate. We do this through writing commentaries in response to items in the media -- the cable shows, talk radio, newspapers, magazines, and the blogosphere. Our focus is on the Left and Islamofacism but we don't limit ourselves to those subjects. 

2. What has been the worst example of media bias in the last several years?

The obvious answer is, of course, the media's inability to properly vet Obama. But there's probably a worse example: the media's willful blindness toward taking Islamofascism seriously. Even Fox News has frequently faltered here.

But consider our recent big story of a student at UC San Diego confessing that she favors the extermination of the Jews. No leftist publication or TV show has even acknowledged this story. It's only been Hannity, Beck, and the conservative blogosphere that's come to the defense of the Jewish people. Would that be the case if a white student had told Angela Davis that he favored a genocide of black people?

3. With the changing face of media and new online sources of information, do you see bias getting worse or lessening?

Oh certainly lessening. The internet is a democratizing force in the media and the newspaper is a dying species. The "liberal media establishment" is a dinosaur quickly being usurped by the more versatile mammals of the internet. Now five friends with no money and an internet connection can start their own online newspaper or magazine. Thus, our focus at NRB isn't countering "media bias." Sure, we'll poke at leftists in the media for peddling their anti-Americanism, but we're not trying to unseat Newsbusters from it's rightful throne as the preeminent blog for confronting bias in the media. 

4. How is media coverage different today than during the Bush presidency?

I don't think the nature of the media has changed too much in the past year and a half. Certainly the presence of the internet has grown tremendously since Bush was sworn in in what seems like a life time ago. Certainly the subjects being covered have changed. The focus during the Bush years was terrorism and the Iraq war. And now the focus seems to be more on the economy. One of the things that's most discouraging about this is that many politicos and average citizens are beginning to take their eye off the ball when it comes to foreign policy. We can't get complacent about the war our enemies are waging against us.

5. Is there significant bias in popular culture as well?

Definitely the Left has a major presence in Hollywood. For a history of this check out the great historians Ron and Allis Radosh's book Red Star over Hollywood.

Often times I think the Left's influence in the popular culture can be overstated. I've blogged about this here. Sure, plenty of leftist films come out. But most of them bomb. And the majority of films are actually apolitical and plenty even have conservative themes. Iron Man 2, anyone? As long as Hollywood needs to make money you'll find films which just naturally bend right. It's hard to do good vs evil without acknowledging that there's evil in the world.

6. Which played a larger role in the 2008 primaries-- Barack Obama influencing media or media influencing the rise of his campaign?

Barack Obama didn't need to influence the media. The dinosaur media was eating out of the palm of his hand, rooting for his victory long before he even declared his candidacy. They already knew what to do.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Old Media and New Media.

Members of the Old Media hate the New Media, and members of the New Media hate the Old Media, but both need one another to survive. That's not an opinion, that's the cold hard truth.

Think about it from this perspective: If the New Media didn't have the Old Media, which is the lone source of news, the New Media would have no news to dissect and no bias to lambast. If the Old Media didn't have the New Media, which is the largest aggregator of news, their articles and information would be under read and unappreciated.

As long as the New Media is based on Internet communication, without substantial funding, and without a growing outreach to more sectors (such as what an published newspaper or magazine can do), there will always be a need for the Old Media, whether we like it or not. Face it; if every Conservative blogger boycotted the Old Media, the New Media would be a opinion chamber, not a news chamber.

So what's the point?

Some members of the New Media are so opposed to the Old Media, that sometimes I think a full blown powderkeg is going to ignite, or in other words, some might actually do something about it, and establish a realistic venture into print media.

Why print media? Well, the current format of Internet news will only reach so many people and it lacks a certain amount of professionalism, but print media corrects both of the above mentioned problems, and it would allow for "New Media" wizkids who have limited resources, to expand a well meaning blog, into a investigative reporting machine with a complete staff.

Until we stop complaining about the Old Media, while using the Old Media for our articles and stories, and we start doing something constructive, such as launching a new bureau of our own focused on what the other media misses, than nothing will ever change. We'll keep linking and they will continue to lie.

Thoughts?

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Prediction: Media Will Attempt to Use Ridge Claims to Get Heat Off of Obama

Former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge has raised eyebrows with accounts that appear to show that Bush Administration pressured him to raise the terror alert level in 2004 to aid the President's reelection campaign.

A couple problems here. I think that Ridge is being honest, but his book doesn't directly say that this happened to begin with. Secondly, he doesn't state that Bush or Cheney asked for this. Third, he was asked by Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, who were both informed about al Qaeda threats.

But what will come from this? This will be used as a distraction away from President Obama's dropping poll numbers and political agenda. This will be a way to reorient the debate from the health care issues to Bush.

Bush is a convenient bogeyman for those uninformed about politics. Many hope that it is still en vogue to call him a stupid dictator. Many on the left, especially MSNBC will hope to launch this smokescreen as a way of saying "See, Bush is finally gone. You don't want him to return do you? So be happy with Obama and shut your mouth."

They will try. One thing that will be interesting is if they succeed.

But until then I call firsties on this.

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

FoxNews Growing in Obama's Shadow

President Obama was elected with over 50% of the vote last year. However, it appears that his political rivals may be able to swipe that much of the television ratings.

With some of the shine leaving the Obama Administration, many who are skeptical are already looking at alternative messages. MSNBC and the New York Times have grown almost infamous in their pro-Obama rallying and the internet is still abuzz with pro-Obama sentiment.

Enter FoxNews. The right-leaning network is definitely and anomaly and its message seems to be striking a tone with many in middle America. Heck, if even the San Francisco Gate is recognizing the rating bonanza that Fox is benefiting from, it must be serious.

Fox's ratings are up double-digits so far this year and it appears more likely that this will continue. Just take a look at this comment from the article:

Even if outnumbered, opposing voices are more likely heard in Fox's prime-time than on MSNBC's. Fox has also largely ignored the more extreme Obama opponents who question whether the president was born in the United States.

This is actually a really good point. Fox has largely been ignoring the crazy "birthers" while MSNBC eagerly had on many who accused Bush of lying about the War in Iraq. In addition, even though O'Reilly isn't my favorite person, he can at least have on opposing viewpoints on his show. Keith Olberdouche has built a veritable echo chamber of slobbering "guests."

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

Just Image if FoxNews Did This

MSNBC has been one of the main cheerleaders in the rise of Obama. It appears that the company behind the news station has taken the effort one step farther.

Despite paying Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz, NBC now feels it necessary to assist the President's political future by selling merchandise slathered with his picture directly on their site. Maybe they need the extra money to pay off Olbermann's new salary.

So is this illegal? No. Is it completely misleading considering that NBC News wants to be 'impartial'? Absolutely. This is a gross smack in the face for anyone that wants to watch unbiased and non-snooty news.

Which brings us back to the original question. What if FoxNews was selling George W. Bush keychains and pictures and mousepads? It would have been 'exposed' as just another branch of the Republican 'hate machine.' Well, where are our lefty friends to call out this gross act of greed.

[Crickets]

That's what I thought.

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

Obama so popular? Not really.

Rasmussen polls are the most accurate in nearly every survey I see them release, but today I will be focusing on Gallup.

Gallup reports Obama has a 56% approval rating among Americans, although they attempt to portray him as popular. However, as Judith Kinghoffer displays at History News Network, Obama's approval ratings are actually below average for most of our past Presidents:

Obama - 56%
Bush #43 - 62%
Clinton - 55% (only President that does worse than Obama).
Bush #41 - 58%
Reagan - 67%
Carter - 63%
Ford - no numbers, he was never elected.
Nixon - 61%.

Hmm, interesting? May I also add, that all of these poll results are from past Gallup polls.

Could it be, that the media is covering for Obama at his every call? Yes, I believe that is the case.

History News Network article - http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below: