In recent years as the blogosphere has grown both in size and clout, the bias in the MSM is finally starting to get some of the negative attention that it deserves.

I’ve had friends say, “don’t encourage your children to go into politics”….they says it no longer represents an honorable profession. (Did it ever?)

As I watch my young son grow, and think of things that I would not wish upon him, a politician is not at the top of the list. Journalism (at least in the MSM) has now taken first place in the realm of “dishonorable” professions.

In recent years the liberal “slant” of the MSM has come into light (i.e. “Rathergate”, Poorly fact-checked story of McCain’s infidelity vs. near media blackout of John Edwards infidelity for examples). Not too mention the entire MSM infatuation with a certain Barack Obama.

The media’s job should be to report without bias the news. Their job is not to assist or prevent candidates from being elected. However this is the route they have taken in recent years. Instead of standing on the side lines as a neutral observer, they have in effect become a willing participant in the political machinery of the modern Democrat party.

There are many people who love to write and they do it well. Their written communication is an art form and it is a joy to read. They are not pawns of either political party. Why would they want to become part of the MSM? Why would someone wish to work for an industry who routinely demonizes the oil companies for dishonesty, but continuously falls on their own face due their own integrity issues?

Is it the pay? Looking at payscale.com the median salary for journalist starting in the industry in $33,000. Does this present enough of an opportunity for professionals seeking strong employment opportunites. While the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. may be some of the bigger names in the MSM, by and large most aspiring journalist will be working there.

When it comes to journalism…America wants people who can report on a general story with no agenda-based bias. Or if you must present your political opinions, be honest and open about it. Americans can tolerate many opinions. We are smarter than many of the MSM journalist give us credit for and we don’t like being duped. Ending with a quote from the Outlaw Josey Wells, “Don't p** down my back and tell me it's raining.”

1. Flip flop on off shore drilling
2. Public Financing 
3. Iraq withdrawal plan
4. Wants to tax excessive profits of oil companies
5. Inflate your tires, don't drill for oil...
6. A new kind of politician with "Change We Can Believe In"...but has associates and friends that would make Tony Soprano blush

While I’m certainly not a Obama supporter, he has done a good job of energizing his base and derailing the assumed coronation of would-be queen HRC. Clinton, a formidable opponent, appears poised to “go to the mattresses”, and begin campaigning Soprano’s style.

HRC seems to be working the “super delegate” track and working to ensure the primaries of Michigan and Florida count (nevermind that they were agreed upon not to be counted prior to….). Rumors that I’ve read mention scenarios where HRC pulls this off, wins the nomination then Obama splits and runs 3^rd party.

This could be of great benefit to McCain. A slit (of compound fracture if you will) of the Dems could leave neither HRC or Obama with enough supporters to take McCain. (Then in a dream scenario Ralph Nader would also run 3^rd party for the Greens).

Yes, I know, a truly unlikely scenario…but one can always dream.

An excellent article on Obama by Ken Blackwell.  

“Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs and a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won’t do, not this time, not this year.”

The status quo…Obama is currently a Senator. Would that not effectively place him squarely in his “status quo”? And further more, what accomplishments does he have? What has he done to help “soaring costs” and a “sluggish economy”. All I heard from him was more government intrusion and punishment for big businesses.

“We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and somehow expect a different result, because it’s a game that ordinary Americans are losing.  We are going to put this game to an end. It’s a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump and our planet is put at risk.  That’s what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that’s why they won’t drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America.”

Does anyone truly believe that Obama or the Democrats are less likely to be influenced by special interest groups? No environmental activists lobby? No MoveOn.org?

Why should we punish the oil company for making record profits. That’s what a for profit publicly traded company is trying to do. As long as we continue to absorb the cost of oil/gas and use it at the same rate it will be hard to return to the “old prices”.

“That’s what happens when we use 9/11 to scare up votes instead of bringing together the people around a common purpose.  And that’s why we need to do more than end the war; we need to end the mindset that got us into war.”

Using 9/11 to scare up votes…I’ll use his words “It’s the past versus future”. Anyone who has been truly paying attention these past few years realizes that 9/11 loomed as a scary reality. It was not used as an excuse to scare up votes. Voters used it as an excuse to be to scared to vote for someone who does not understand it’s significance.

“It’s the past versus future.  It’s about whether we’re looking backwards or whether we’re marching forward.  And when I’m the Democratic nominee for president, that will be the choice we have in November.”

His “hope” and future are a pre-9/11 attitude. It’s an ignore my inexperience and “trust me” attitude. It’s an ignore my opponents accomplishments attitude.

“Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq, 100 years, which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House.”

Where do I start on this one? Granted, this was a silly remark for McCain during a campaign. You had to have known this would get picked up on by the Democrats. Obama is stretching the truth on this one. McCain has no intention of keeping the troops there one minute longer than necessary. However, he won’t bring them home until the job (that Obama doesn’t believe in) is done.

“It’s the dream of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake at night wondering how he’s going to pay the bills.  He needs us to restore fairness to our economy by putting tax cuts into the pockets of working people, and seniors, and struggling homeowners.”

How would tax cuts for the lower income brackets help the economy for than those for the upper income brackets? Who are more likely to create jobs, higher earners or lower income workers? What is more likely to provide a spring to the economy? A high wage earner will have more discretionary income to spend, thus boosting the economy.

“That is our calling in this campaign.  That’s our calling, to reaffirm that fundamental belief:  I am my brother’s keeper.  I am my sister’s keeper.  That belief that makes us one people and one nation.”

Read: Government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself. A slap in the face to the hard working American. Why have do it yourself attitude, when you can have a have Obama do it for you attitude…?

My wife, son, and I spent a long weekend in a cabin on Petit Jean Mountain in Arkansas. We drove up from Fort Worth to celebrate our son’s first birthday with friends and family. I had not been up on Petit Jean Mountain since 2000 or 2001, it was nice to visit again. Other than the “stressors” of prepping for 25 guests coming to a one-year old’s birthday party, the weekend was a relaxing getaway. There was, of course, all the driving…but it was off set by the scenery on the mountain. I also unwound by jogging around the Winthrop Rockefeller Center ranch, while listening to George Strait on my IPOD.

I am glad we moved away from Connecticut and back to Texas so we can enjoy these types of activities with our families. Traveling from New England to Arkansas required weeks of planning (without a child). Traveling with a child from Texas to Arkansas, requires a good bit of planning, but nothing in comparison to the alternative.

I’ve been buried in my job and have not blogged in “forever”. I’ll have to jump back “on the band wagon” and start posting my unsolicited opinions on whatever comes to mind.

Dear Mr. Warren:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of John

Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. It was a pleasure to

hear from you, and I appreciate the benefit of your views on this

important subject.

John Bolton was nominated by President Bush to serve as

United States Ambassador to the United Nations on March 7, 2005.

I did not support this nomination when it was voted upon by the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I continue to oppose his

nomination. I strongly believe that Mr. Bolton's past actions,

most significantly his attempts to have intelligence officials

removed because they disagreed with his interpretation of

available intelligence, disqualify him from this position. His

selective use of intelligence data, as well as his actions to

stifle consideration of alternative policy options also cross

over the line of acceptability. If confirmed, his record

threatens to undermine the credibility of the United States and,

therefore, diminish our capacity to convince other nations to

support us on issues critical to national security.

According to interviews conducted by Senate Foreign

Relations Committee staff, on several occasions, intelligence

officials disapproved of and resisted Mr. Bolton's efforts to

"cherry pick" intelligence for ideological purposes. Moreover,

at least eight current or former members of the Bush

Administration have stated that Mr. Bolton tried to have

intelligence analysts removed from their posts. Many of these

officials stated that he may have done so because the

intelligence these analysts provided was at odds with the policy

positions he wished to take. Mr. Bolton's actions contributed to

the politicization of the intelligence process, which Carl Ford,

Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR)

during President George W. Bush's first term in office, described

as causing a chill among his officers. Responding to this

chilling effect, Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to

make a special visit to INR to reassure the analysts that they

should not succumb to political pressure.

At a time when the credibility of United States intelligence

has been called into question, there are few issues more critical

than the integrity of our intelligence analysis. Any official

who pressures intelligence analysts or "cooks the books" for

political purposes should not serve as a spokesperson for United

States foreign policy. For these reasons, I believe that

confirmation of this nomination would set a negative precedent

regarding the manner in which business should be conducted in our

intelligence community.

My opposition to this nomination is shared by 103 career

diplomats from five different administrations over the past four

decades, who have signed a public letter in opposition to Mr.

Bolton's candidacy. Even Larry Wilkerson, the Chief of Staff to

former Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated publically that he

believed John Bolton would be "an abysmal ambassador."

As you may know, the Committee on Foreign Relations voted to

report Mr. Bolton's nomination without recommendation on May 12,

2005. On May 26 and June 20, 2005, the Senate defeated motions

to invoke cloture and proceed to an up or down vote on the Bolton 

nomination. On both those occasions, I voted against cloture

because I believe the Administration is withholding critical

documentation that goes to the heart of whether or not John

Bolton is fit to serve as the United States Ambassador to the

United Nations. These documents were requested nearly two months

before the first motion to invoke cloture, and, as a matter of

institutional privilege, I believe as a coequal branch of

government, the Senate has a right to solicit information that

directly pertains to the qualifications of a nominee to be

confirmed by the Senate. Nevertheless, the Administration

refused to provide this documentation. Please be assured that I

will keep your views in mind as we continue to debate this

nomination and important matters of concern to the country and

the people of Connecticut.

Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to

stay in touch with me on this and other issues of importance,

please visit my website at http://dodd.senate.gov and subscribe

to my online newsletter, the Dodd Digest. Please do not hesitate

to contact me again if I can help you in any way.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

United States Senator