by H. L. Trisky

Item one-
A small story on Sept. 26th, A19, “Checkpoint. Taking on the Mortgage Giants”
The purpose of this story is to deflate McCain, pure and simple.
It focuses on claims by McCain that he co-sponsored “a Senate bill that would have strengthened regulation of Franie Mae and Fredie Mac.”
---------------
“Senator John McCain is correct: He warned two years ago that Congress should rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage finance companies, before their financial risk-taking threatened the economy, and Senator Barack Obama did not. But Mr. McCain overstates the role he has played, interviews and Senate records suggest. “

More:

“The McCain campaign also noted that in 2003 Mr. McCain was one of only five senators, all Republicans, who sponsored a bill to strengthen regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Neither the 2003 nor the 2006 versions came to a Senate vote. Democrats on the Banking Committee opposed them.”
-----------------
Femisex:
There’s no way for the Times to deny that McCain was a supporter of tighter regs on F &F, so they spend the article condemning him for not making sure that legislation passed. They say McCain overstates his role, but the reporter Never showed that in the article. As a matter of fact, ALL MCCAIN’S CLAIMS CITED IN THE PIECE ARE TRUE, something that seems to have evaded the minds of the reporter and editors as the swim this way and that to paint McCain as a liar.

More from Times piece:
“Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, was “silent,” Mr. McCain tells campaign audiences, and he blames Mr. Obama’s ties to Fannie Mae executives, particularly former chairmen James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines. Mr. Johnson has been a senior Obama adviser, but both Mr. Obama and Mr. Raines say they met once, for just minutes.

Femisex factcheck: Obama was silent. True. And Raines has contradicted his own accounts of phone calls between himself and Obama on the economy.

More Times:
“Two years ago, I warned the American people about the lack of oversight, transparency, backroom dealings and financial recklessness at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,” Mr. McCain said on Tuesday in Michigan. “Those warnings went unheeded, and more than anything directly contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis which has created the perfect economic storm.”

Femisex: true and the Times doesn’t dispute

More Times:
“McCain…made a short speech in the Senate that day to note it. He did so the same week a regulatory agency filed a report charging that Fannie Mae had inflated its earnings, winning big bonuses for its executives.
“If Congress does not act,” Mr. McCain said in the Senate, “American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Femisex: again true.

So in essence everything McCain says is true. McCain said yes, tighten up on F &F, the dems said no, ditched the bill, then the dems came up with a weaker version that Bush rejected. It is hard to see how McCain overstated his role, and the Times never does make that clear. They do trot out a former Freddie Mac executive who lobbied against tighter regs, to say McCain didn’t try hard enough. Hmmm, that is good, I really trust that account. Or the fact that politicians are now pointing fingers everywhichwaybutsouth for blamegame coverage.

End of day verict by Femisex: Co-sponsoring a bill for tighter regs and a Senate floor speech that was dead-on in warning of this mess is not overstating ur position on wanting to tighten regs on F&F.

And, btw, the Times made sure to mention Rick Davis and the $ his private firm got from F&F, but FAILED to point out Obama’s massive donations from F&F in just a blip-time in the Senate.

Times story Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26check.html?scp=1&sq=taki...

NEXT:
Dubious Claims or Outright Lies.....

The Times was Forced, kicking and screaming to do a front pg story on the magnitude of Obama’s lies in campaign ads--it would be impossible to wiggle out of this after Fact Check and WaPo talked about Obama’s Whopper Lies and Politifact.com said “Pants on Fire” re O’s lies. So with their Hand forced by others, The Times outlines several serious lies Obama has told about McCain’s policy issues and personal beliefs on ethnicity.

----------------From the Times:
“In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers…”
-------------------

Here’s the link for you to see the Litany of Lies O is promoting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26ads.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=d...

But what if just too sad for prime time is that the Times feels compelled to lLIE to its own readers, YES lie to them when attempting to stick up third-grade like for their BFF, Obama. The Times went on to say this:
-------------------from the Times:
“…Mr. Obama had yet to produce spots along the lines of two from Mr. McCain that drew criticism two weeks ago: One that wrongly asserted Mr. Obama supported comprehensive sex education for kindergartners and another, created only for the Internet, that incorrectly asserted that Mr. Obama had been referring to Ms. Palin when he said of Mr. McCain’s new message of change, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”
--

Talk about Whopper Lies! And From the Times to its readers no less!
Factcheck by FemiSex:
The lipstick on a pig and wrapping an old fish in newspaper comments by Obama Certainly Were references to 1st Palin and then McCain. Of course they were! And telling readers that is NOT what Obama meant is silly. Yes the press has all sunk to the bottom of O’s tank in an effort to say that is NOT what their BFF meant, but public is NOT that stupid, yet...the Times Masthead thinks we are...tsk tsk, Times Boys.

Then re the SEX ED Times Lie
..a bit of news. Telling kids in kindergarten that touching themselves may feel good (somethng O's sex-ed plan called for) is about a day late and dollar short of reality, as most anyone with young kids knows. Kids and masturbation is reality. Pretending it is not is stupid, AS IS pretending the sex-ed Obama promoted didn’t teach this to kindergarten children.

THAT IS sex ed, for better or worse, depending if u want to do the sex-ed ur-self or let public schools handle this sort of teaching. I don't think i'd want my kid to get masturbation 101 in kindergarten but i'm not up in arms if they do, i guess. But that is beside the point, point is....Yes, Obama did promote sex-ed for kindergarteners! I have yet to see any material that talks about predatory touching in the O-promoted sex ed.
Show me the $ as they say......

So....Now NY Times just fess up and stop lying to ur reades and perhaps you will come away from this election with a cent to ur name. Otherwise, Just let the blogs do the reporting, and put the Gray Lady to bed—preferably with a self-stimulating devise, cause readers may well be thru with tickling ur pages for intellectual stimulation.

Finally—
This is smaller potatoes but instructive nonetheless:

Next up:
New York Times, always a looking way to prop up Oh_Boy, had this to say in a recent piece (last week) on the economic meltdown and the nominees’ reax to it.
-----------From the Times:
"Mr. Obama might not have fared much better. He had come to Washington only reluctantly, opening himself to criticism by Republicans that he was putting his election bid ahead of the need to resolve the Wall Street crisis, and prompting concern among Democrats that his reaction to the events was simply too measured, considering the stakes.
Still, by nightfall, the day provided the younger and less experienced Mr. Obama an opportunity to, in effect, shift roles with Mr. McCain. For a moment, at least, it was Mr. Obama presenting himself as the old hand at consensus building, and as the real face of bipartisan politics.
“What I’ve found, and I think it was confirmed today, is that when you inject presidential politics into delicate negotiations, it’s not necessarily as helpful as it needs to be,” Mr. Obama told reporters Thursday evening. “Just because there is a lot of glare of the spotlight, there’s the potential for posturing or suspicions.”
“When you’re not worrying about who’s getting credit, or who’s getting blamed, then things tend to move forward a little more constructively,” he said.
--------------------

Femisex asks, aside from the Obama quote that is pure partisan politics, how, EXACTLY, did the day provide Obama this opportunity to become bipartisan?

An accurate (non-biased) version would say that:
Obama used McCain’s rush to Washington as a chance to play his own version of political football, saying,….. insert above Obama Quote Here.

(btw: here is FemiSex translation of O’s quote: (Look, press pack, sure I, the Great O, didn’t do a thing on rescue plan, was actually quite lackadaisical in fact, but…this is how I’m gonna spin it to make McCain look silly for trying to do something.)

Instead the Times uses an old trick of burying this in a blizzard of words to let the reader come away a bit confused, but remembering the final words: Obama…“the real face of bipartisan politics.”

So readers, u just got journalism 101, partisan writing techniques. Take a partisan statement and paint it as bipartisan when ur promoting that special someone.

Now this is small potatoes, but this done over and over and over again tears into the readers mind. I could also point out other examples in this article but…only so many minutes in the day.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1&scp=1...
This was a page one story.