The idea: A web based daily news review show openly challenging and refuting the "facts" presented to the American people by the Obamaphile MSM. Upload each show on YouTube, LiveLeak, GoogleVideo, etc. and have downloadable versions in all audiovisual formats (mpg, mp4, avi, wmv, etc.) hosted on johnmccain.com and mirror sites.
The concept is simple; for the next 40 to 50 days, selected members of the McCain/Palin campaign would present the "2008 Campaign News Review" where they would turn a brutally critical eye on the MSM campaign reportage and commentary that went on in the past twenty four hours (and beyond), naming names, issuing forceful corrections/refutations and putting the bias in the limelight; from misleading headlines and ledes to the citing of partisan "experts" posing as disinterested observers, omissions, "careless errors", etc.
At the end, of course, "brought to you by McCain/Palin 2008."
Without spending much more than what it would cost for a set of cameras and teleprompter, a fast internet connection and video/graphics editing software, and, at most, a few additional campaign (if even required) staff, the "Campaign News Review" would be a practical avenue to neutralize Obama and the Democrats' main advantage against McCain and the GOP.
I guarantee that there would be millions of views within hours of the first broadcast being uploaded to YouTube. And no, the Press Corps would not be able to ignore it.As for where the hosts would get their source material; in my last diary, I complained that the GOP does not utilize the power of the Right-wing blogosphere (the "Dextrosphere") not nearly as much as it should ... well here's one way they can. As an example - the AP's Garance Burke all-but-openly levelled an accusation of hypocrisy yesterday at Sarah Palin;
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Gov. Sarah Palin may eventually have said "no thanks" to a federally funded Bridge to Nowhere.But a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, that's a different story.A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead, despite concerns the bridge could worsen some commuting and threaten a population of beluga whales.
The guys at Powerline decided to take a look for themselves, and of course, discovered that this is not quite so;
The AP views this as a contradiction, apparently on the assumption that one must either support all bridges, or none. That's a bizarre theory; it seems rather obvious that some bridges are a good idea, while others are not.
The bridge at issue is the Knik Arm bridge, that would link Anchorage to points west and north. You can read about the Knik Arm bridge here. Currently, people who live across the Knik Arm from Anchorage have to drive 80 miles to get there. If the two-mile bridge were built, access would obviously be a great deal easier. (This must be what the AP means by "worsen[ing] some commuting.") This aerial photograph shows where the bridge would go[.]This map gives more context; the proposed bridge would go across the mouth of the Knik Arm, from the Point Mackenzie Development Area in the lower left to the City of Anchorage:Note the location of Wasilla in the upper right portion of the map. Now recall these utterly dishonest statements by the Associated Press:
But a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, that's a different story. A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead ...
The Knik Arm Bridge is not, obviously, a "bridge to [Palin's] hometown of Wasilla," nor does it "link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents." Wasilla is many miles away from the proposed bridge, and, in fact, the quickest route from Wasilla to Anchorage may be the existing one, even if the proposed new bridge is built. The Associated Press just made up those inflammatory statements to try to prejudice you against Sarah Palin and to help the Obama campaign.
The AP just launched another partisan broadside (check out the playing up of the tenuous connection to Don Young's son-in-law) at Sarah Palin, to be picked up by other elements of the MSM and transmitted onward to the reading and viewing American public. From the article, one would think that the only people in Alaska in favor of the Knik Arm Bridge project are the Palin Administration and people with a direct financial stake in it.
At this point, it's a numbers game. How many people are going to see Garance Burke's patently dishonest hit piece? How many are going to see John Hinderaker's pin-point take-down? Right now, the story the AP wants to tell about Left-wing activists hacking into Sarah Palin's personal yahoo account - an invasion of privacy that would have had them screaming from the rooftops if she were a Democrat?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business [NOTE: No evidence of this presented in the article] as Alaska's governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate ...
The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.
Rectifying this sort of thing is where the "Campaign News Review" can come in. Right-wing bloggers are everyday writing take-downs and refutations of the corrupted product the 90% Democratic MSM is peddling everyday tothe public. For its own sake, the McCain Campaign needs to utilize these resources.
Recent polls (and I take Ace's position that dismissing polls I don't like as "flawed" is a 2006 mistake we should not repeat again) are already showing that the MSM's settling on the more effective long-term strategy of daily hit pieces and push-poll headlines against the McCain/Palin ticket while underplaying or willfully turning a blind eye to stories (e.g. the too-cosy relationship between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Congressional Democrats, including Obama that started this mess) that are potentially damaging to Obama and Congressional Democrats' chances in November, is having an effect.
New media means that media bias need not be taken lying down ... the Press Corps is already enraged at McCain anyway - per Rich Lowry, they expected him to co-operate in the coronation of Barack Obama and run an even more accommodating reprise of the Dole '96 campaign - to happily lose. So why fear making them mad?
And since the McCain campaign already brought up the subject, why not go the whole nine yards and openly call them out on it on a daily basis until Election Day? They're already skating on very thin ice with American people. I'm suggesting Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis throw a nice heavy rock.