An Open Letter To Michael Smerconish.

Last week, Philadelphia Big Talker 1210 mornign talk show host Michael Smerconish (aka Smernakof) wrote an op ed peice to announce his support for Barack Obama. He wrote it two days before it printed and sent it to those on the show's email list(of which I am one). The announcement was not surprising to those of us who follow Michael but apparently created serious consternation in his audience. That then motivated Michael to stretch the unhappiness further by writing another op ed this time critical of his own audience.

The floodgates of criticism opened before my endorsement of Barack Obama was even published last Sunday.

I gave my talk-radio audience a two-day advance warning of my decision while asking that they read what I had written.

More than 500 people weighed in immediately, unwilling to consider my argument before criticizing its conclusion.

Michael is right. His fans were upset and lashed out. But he is also wrong that his fans have no substance to their lack of support for his position. And once he uses his position to advance it as almost like a campaign position, it is all fair game. So, to address his issue, I would like to offer my rebuttal to his original op ed.

Terrorism: Michael has been hung up on Pakistan due to the alleged/likely existance of Osama Bin Laden there. He is right that we should focus more there in the war on terror. He is also right that Iraq is a distraction that didn't need to happpen. But the problem with his argument is that it did happen and now it needs to be dealt with. A cheap talking point that "I will get Bin Laden" doesn't dignify what the next President will need to do to clean this all up.

Unfortunately McCain is a little too status quo on this. But Obama is a little too naive as well suggesting that we should attack Pakistan (a sovereign country just like Iraq who would not appreciate it). Michael for some time has repeated this tome. And then proceeded his hero worship with Obama during the primary debating who stole each other's line. It was a bit cozy then and not as objective as Michael would probably want it to be. From my perspective, Michael seems to hang way too much importance on this. Too much of his argument is about Bush and not about McCain.

Economy: It is way too easy for Michael to repeat one of the favorite Democrat attack adds about McCain saying the fundamentals are sound. Guess what? They are. It is not stupid to try to calm the markets and the President's job is to do just that. What about Obama? What did he say? Nothing. He stood there like a deer in the headlights and said that candidates should stay out of it. Sorry Michael, that isn't very impressive.

And while we are on the economy, let's look at the pass that both Michael and much of the media have given to the Democrats and Obama. This problem has causes. Bush was one because he didn't make the mortgage issue a priority. He also represents the team in power. The Democrats were also responsible. This includes Obama. Why when Michael had the change did he not ask Obama what he did to become the second biggest recipient of Fannie/Freddie during his interview? Apparently, because someone yelled Hussein during McCain's appearance in Pa, that was more important.

VP: Michael is more than happy to declare Sarah Palin "not ready" to be Vice President. But he has never asked whether nor not Barack Obama is ready to be President. We have the immediate question of competence and one that is second hand. Michael discounts the first and glorifies the second. I am calling Malarkey on this one! Michael was already on his way with Obama. Maybe it was his time with Matthews or maybe it was Pakistan but his argument he is specious.

Sarah Palin has a solid record. Barack Obama gives a good speech. Let's be honest. It you want to trash Palin's experience, you have to trash Obama's. Yes, Palin would be a hearbeat away. But an election could put Obama there. This is an sorry example of doublespeak. Sorry Michael, I like you but this one doesn't work for me.

And as for Joe Biden? Are we kidding here? Michael loves Joe because he knows him. The media likes him because he has been there for quotes and gaffs for years. The net is that he is a complete buffoon. He is only convincing when he is lying and he does that often. Thank God that Obama is young because this fool should never be responsible for the nuclear codes. But he is a nice man so he has that going for him.

Opportunity: Michael is right on about this one and I agree. Michael's comments are here:

In a speech delivered on Father's Day, Obama lamented that too
many fathers are missing from the lives of too many children and mothers.
Look no further than Philadelphia for proof that the nation has a fatherhood
problem at the root of its firearms crisis. And no demographic is affected
by this confluence of factors like the black community. Among the many
elements needed to address this crisis are role models, individuals whom
urban youth can aspire to emulate. Little more than a year ago, Charles
Barkley told me: "I want young black kids to see Barack on television every
day. . . . We need to see more blacks who are intelligent, articulate, and
who carry themselves with great dignity." Obama can be that man.
Although, he has never brought it up before on his show in any substantive way. I would be much happier if Michael went this route and not the Pakistan route as his major suit for OBama.

Hope: Sorry, this was Clinton's line. Obama may be liked in Europe but he isn't running for Ambassador for Europe. The American President has a job and very few of his constituents are in Europe or anywhere else. I had a job where I travelled the world extensively and frankly, other countries often criticise the US. It is sometimes envy, sometimes valid and often complete rubbish. This is weak stuff and really not worthy of Michael's other arguments. Being last, it struck me as an afterthought.

Michael also took this opportunity to criticise McCain for not reigning in people at his campaign events. I don't know where Michael has been living but Republicans, the President and anyone conservative have been literally skewered by Democrats on a daily basis for years. The Senator Majority leader said he "hated" McCain. Routinely people at Obama events advocate killing George Bush. In Philadelphia, a Democrat t-shirt seller is promoting his "Sarah Palin is a C*nt" T-shirts. I have not heard Obama tell them to tone it down nor would I expect him to. Come on Michael.

The net here is that Michael is much closer to his friend Chris Matthews than he thinks. Mayne his leg doesn't tingle but he has been looking for reasons to vote for Obama. And you know what, what's wrong with that? Our current President is often inarticulate, McCain isn't much better and maybe we just all need a change. But let's not pretend that there is a whole lot more than that, shall we?

The Great Obama Coverup

I continue to be amazed at the level of active campaigning being done by the mainstream media in this presidential election. Time and time again, both candidates don't seem to get the same treatment and yet it is accepted by everyone as status quo. Yesterday, a McCain supporter expressed he outrage. This is happening because regular people are frustrated that this has degenerated to something far less than a fair fight. And mark my words, someone (likely the print media first is going to pay and pay big).

Need examples? McCain is tagged with the economic problems despite attempting to reform the system that caused them. Obama accepted major campaign contributions directly from the corrupt institutions second only to Chris Dodd. No questions asked of Obama by the media. The story? McCain is erratic because he went back to DC and tried to do something (he should have known that is much easier to be "present").

Obama's campaign war chest has been feathered by massive donation fraud. Basic checks have not been made to verify donors. This includes gibberish typed from a computer keyboard and numerous Dallas Cowboys without valid addresses. Any questions of Obama? No. But there have been plenty of questions about McCain having someone who was once a lobbyist in his campaign.

Obama is clearly a byproduct of a "go along get along" corrupt Chicago political establishment. As a matter of fact, his defense to his connections with Weather Underground Terrorist William Ayers (as told to Michael Smerconish yesterday on 1210 in Philadelphia) was that he was just a guy who was part of the political establishment that he worked with in Chicago. He made a long term habit of voting "present" in the legislature. He has stood for and continues to stand for nothing. But he is a transformational candidate. And no one asks questions about it.

During Obama's time in Chicago he touts being a "community organizer". Funny thing is that an organization he trained, ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is right this minute under investigation in 11 states for voter fraud. Has anyone asked Obama about this? Nope. The story? Republicans are trying to suppress turnout.

Joe Biden sounded really good in his debate last week. The trouble is, virtually every single thing he said was not just shading of the truth, but an outright lie. And the story? Sarah Palin winked.

Barack Obama in this week's debate couldn't wait to highlight his man of the people meme about how he would cut taxes to 95% of the people in the United States(paid for by the 5% who will see a tax increase). Trouble is, 40% of the people in the United States do not pay taxes at all due to the Bush Tax Cuts. So in reality, Obama just announced a massive welfare payment payed for by the small business establishment stupid enough to be in his top 5%. Any questions by the media? Nope. The story? McCain is taxing healthcare (a convenient lie by Obama who leaves out that McCain has proposed a credit that would more than offset any tax on the premium).

And then the whoppers. I cannot even count the disgusting and nasty rhetoric that come from direct Obama spokespeople, supporters and media people in regard to McCain and Palin. McCaskill, Reid, Axelrod and hollywood celebrities all spewing negative bile ("I hate McCain" Harry Reid, "McCain injecting race into this election" Axelrod, "That is one crazy b*tch" Betty White). And NOT ONE time does Obama tell his own people to tone it down. As a matter of fact, you can probably collect dozens of these kinds of insults each week for the past two years. And does the media report on that? No. They report that someone referred to Barack Obama by his middle name, Hussein. And Obama then goes on the radio and says McCain should tone it down.

If Obama gets elected and a flood of bad news comes down the pike that should have been reported beforehand, it may be time for a real revolution against the mainstream media. While I would be extremely sad to see an institution like General Motors go out of business, I would not blink an eye if the New York Times ceased to exist.