Posts Tagged ‘Jake Tapper’

Even JOURNALISTS Are Admitting It Now: The Mainstream Media Is Feverishly Working To Slant ‘News’ To Benefit The Obama Campaign

August 23, 2012

Two different observations from two different journalists says quite a bit that needs to be said:

The first came recently from Mark Halperin:

Mark Halperin: ‘The Media Is Very Susceptible to Doing What the Obama Campaign Wants’
11:57 AM, Aug 18, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

“The Obama folks clearly know they’ve found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney,” said NBC’s Lester Holt. “And then of course late in the week comes this challenge–’give us a little more and we won’t complain anymore.’ Has this issue come to the point it’s jumped the shark?”
 
“I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this,” said Halperin.

The mainstream media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.  True dat.

The second comes from Jake Tapper, and becomes even more relevant when you consider Halperin’s observation:

Jake Tapper: Media Is Failing The Country
August 21, 2012

Truer words were never said.
 
Jake Tapper of ABC News is one of the last honest men in the business. In an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show today, Tapper pointed out what’s obvious to so many Americans.
 
The media was and is in the tank for Obama…

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, White House reporter Jake Tapper said that the media is failing the country.

“A lot of people are hurting out there. Unemployment is 8.3 percent. That doesn’t even take into account the underemployed,” he said, arguing that too much time has been spent not talking about the economy.
 
Tapper also criticized the media for not giving enough attention to the war in Afghanistan.
 
“We are spending a lot of time in the last few weeks, those of us in the political world, political journalists and also politicians, talking about things other than the economy,” said Tapper. “[A] lot of people are hurting out there. I’d like to see more action taken and more emphasis given to this issue.”
 
Tapper also said he relates to Mark Halperin’s recent comments about the media. Over the weekend, Halperin said, “I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this.”
 
“I have said before… [that I] thought the media helped tip the scales. I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hilary Clinton or John McCain,” Tapper said.
 
On the 2008 coverage, he noted, “Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, [the] campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.”

 Listen to audio from Real Clear Politics

Speaking of Hilary Clinton and 2008, it is a fact of history that the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton herself said that Fox News gave them fairer coverage than any other news outlet:

Hillary Clinton: “There Were A Lot Of Times When I Appreciated” Fox News During Primary
Huffington Post
First Posted: 10-14-08 12:09 PM   |   Updated: 11-14-08 05:12 AM

Hillary Clinton appeared on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she “appreciated” Fox News’ balanced coverage of her campaign.

[...]

“We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running,” Carlson said.

“There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear,” Clinton responded.

Clinton also said that Sarah Palin is facing the same sort of sexism that she faced.

I wish a major polling organization would do a poll on registered Democrats and ask the question, “Do you believe Hillary Clinton would have done a better job governing the country than Barack Obama has?”  I truly believe that most Democrats would respond, “Hell yes!”

Fox News was fair and balanced when all the other mainstream media “news” outlets were in the tank swooning in adoration with their legs tingling for Obama.

Barack Obama has profoundly damaged America.  And either John McCain OR Hillary Clinton would have done a HELL of a lot better job than this failed turd.  And the only network that gave either of those candidates any chance at all is the Fox News network which also happens to be the ONLY NEWS NETWORK WHOSE ANCHORS WEAR AMERICAN FLAG PINS ON THEIR LAPELS.  Because unlike ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., Fox News actually gives a flying damn about America rather than sanctimoniously considering themselves above America and “citizens of the world” the way all the other propaganda outlets do.  There’s a reason that a story came out that ABC banned their journalists from wearing American flag pins - because nobody the hell was WEARING ONE.  Rather, the mainstream media are following their “citizen of the world-in-chief” Barack Obama.

Fox News is different from Obama and all the other mainstream media “citizens of the world.”  They actually give a damn about their country.  Which is why they wear American flag pins when others won’t and which is why they gave fair coverage to Hillary Clinton and John McCain when others wouldn’t.

Hillary Clinton ought to finally understand what it’s like to be a Republican.  Because the mainstream media treated her like a Republican until it was time for them to swivel their guns to take aim at John McCain.

Doctrinaire liberal “journalist” Evan Thomas of Newsweek birdcage-liner fame once said this in a candid moment:

July 18th, 2008
Press worth more than fifteen points for Obama?

Query:

If, as Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in a moment of unguarded candor:

The media, I think, want [Democratic presidential candidate John F.] Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and [running mate John] Edwards…as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points…”

—then how much is Obama’s press worth?

I’d say about double that.

And aren’t Evans’ remarks even more on target as a description of the Obama mystique than they ever were for Kerry/Edwards?

Keep in mind, Evan Thomas was the guy who infamously said of Obama:

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

So when a guy like Evan Thomas says that basically the Republican has to win by MORE than fifteen points because that’s what the media is going to give to the Democrat, you get a sense of how desperate we are in these last days of America as a Joseph Goebbels press runs amok with reality.

And, yes, as Jake Tapper indicates, there are ALL KINDS of big stories that the news media ought to be focusing on like a laser beam – which is EXACTLY what they would be doing if the incumbant were George Bush rather than Barack Hussein.

So to Jake Tapper’s big questions that the media are refusing to cover: does the Obama campaign want to talk about the economy?  How about HELL NO:

Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville have released a striking new report arguing in stark terms that some key voting groups now reject President Obama’s claim that the economy is improving — and may well reject Obama himself in November.

Democracy Corps, the political consulting group run by Greenberg and Carville, showed several Obama campaign commercials to focus groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several of the group members, who were “all independents or weak partisans and ticket-splitters” and included both Obama and McCain voters from 2008, became irritated when shown Obama ads touting economic improvement. They don’t see that improvement in their own lives, the report says, and they don’t believe Obama when he claims things are better.

The fact of the matter is that Obama CAN’T talk about the economy because he has wildly and spectacularly failed - and in fact has wildly and spectacularly failed according to his very own rhetoric.

How about Afghanistan?  Does Obama want to talk about how he’s done in Afghanistan?  Let me quote myself from a comment I made before writing this:

It truly is stunning. If you examine the casualties in Afghanistan, you find that fully damn HALF of them occurred just during the last 27 months of the failed Obama presidency. Keep in mind, this is a war that Bush fought all eight years of his presidency … with a total of 630 American KIA during those eight years. The other 1,472 dead – seventy percent of all the casualties of the entire war – are all on Obama during less than HALF the time.

And where are all the damn liberals and the Cindy Sheehans crying over the dead soldiers when we really need them???

Do you believe that the Obama campaign wants to talk about Obama’s failure in Afghanistan and how Obama is working on being the first loser since the last Democrat war debacle in Vietnam???

THAT’S why the mainstream media isn’t talking about this stuff, Jake.  Because Obama doesn’t want them to and Obama is the mainstream media messiah as no one else has EVER been.

The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney as a “vampire capitalist” who outsourced jobs at Bain.  So they talk about Bain the way Obama wants them to even though Mitt Romney built up 8 out of 10 of the failing businesses he rescued, even though all of the examples of “outsourcing” occurred AFTER Romney left Bain and in fact WHILE Obama’s top bundler was the head of Bain, and even though OBAMA is a FAR bigger outsourcer.  The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney’s taxes, so the media have fixated on Mitt Romney’s taxes

The one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that the mainstream media will do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IT CAN DO to ensure that this campaign isn’t about the central issues facing the nation – because if it was Obama would lose in a landslide.

Lying Democrats Demonize Romney-Ryan For Gutting Medicare; Meanwhile, ONE-THIRD Of Funding For ObamaCare Comes Out Of Medicare

August 16, 2012

ONE-THIRD of the funding for ObamaCare comes by Obama gutting Medicare.

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh

It is a FACT: Obama takes $716 billion out of Medicare to fund his ObamaCare.  Anybody who cares about Medicare cannot in good conscience vote for the man with the plan that does that.

It is ALSO a FACT that ABC News points out that in the same interview Barack Obama pledges to veto ANY attempt to undo his gutting of Medicare.  ABC posts the relevant portion of the interview transcript:

TAPPER: One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “Right.

TAPPER: A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You saw that with the ‘doc fix.’

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?

OBAMA: Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria. The full transcript of the interview can be read here.

-Jake Tapper

Democrats live by the mantra, “Facts are terrible things.  And they have to be buried at all cost.”

Especially when that “cost” comes out of the guts of Medicare.

Coward-in-Chief Obama Agrees With You Whether You’re For, Against Gay Marriage

August 6, 2010

The pretzel president.  That’s Barry Hussein.  He’ll say one thing, then say another thing that completely contradicts the first thing.  Then he’ll enact a policy which contradicts both positions.  And then he’ll brazenly tell you, “As I’ve said all along” as though you are some kind of drooling imbecile who can’t remember anything from two minutes ago.

Of course, that last description apparently suits the mainstream media quite well.  At least it does most of the time.

Fortunately, it doesn’t ALWAYS.  Once in a very great while, someone in the mainstream media actually holds the Obamaland rhetoric to account.

From the MSNBC transcript with senior Obama adviser David Axelrod:

GUTHRIE:  So let’s start with the news, the federal judge striking down the ban on same-sex marriage that California voters passed in 2008.  I think the American public could be forgiven if they’re a little confused about where the president stands on all of this. He has said he opposes same-sex marriage.  He has said during the campaign he didn’t mind what California voters were trying to do, trying to ban Prop 8.  Yesterday, though, the White House comes out and says, well, the president has spoken out against Prop 8 in the past.  He said he would work to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but that the Justice Department, since he’s been president, has actually litigated on behalf of that law.  So let’s just forget all of that in the past and ask you, where does the president stand today?  Does he still opposed same-sex marriage?

AXELROD:  Well, Savannah, let me just correct something in your rather lengthy litany of events there.

The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time.  He felt that it was divisive.  He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time.  So we reiterated that position yesterday.  The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control.  He’s supports civil unions, and that’s been his position throughout.  So nothing has changed.

GUTHRIE:  But David, can I just say, I’m looking at an interview right here that Jake Tapper of ABC did back in June of 2008, where Tapper asks him, “Does it bother you what California’s doing?”  And the president responds, “No.”

AXELROD:  Well, Savannah, I’m at a loss here, because I’m just sitting on a set, but I’d be happy to ship you the statements that the president made on — specifically on Proposition 8 and his opposition to it at the time So you’re working off of incomplete information there.

How DARE you correct your messiah, Savannah.  It doesn’t matter if he’s a dirtbag liar.  If Barry Hussein says two and two make five, then two and two make five.  If Obama lies, then his lie becomes your truth.  Understand?

Okay, here’s the Hussein-unapproved version of reality.  Obama interview with Jake Tapper, June 16, 2008:

TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government’s historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That’s what I’ll do as president.

TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California’s doing?

OBAMA: No.

Well, at least Obama wasn’t for it before he was against it, like previous Democrat slimebag for president John Kerry.  Not at all: Obama was against it before he was for it.  Big difference.

And if you don’t think so, it’s only because you’re a racist.

For the official record, this is NOT David Axelrod “misspeaking.”  This is David Axelrod, senior Obama official, continuing to enact the “official” White House position.  Let’s go back to the spot that Axelrod said:

“… and he opposed it at the time.  So we reiterated that position yesterday.”

Now who is this “we”?  Do you think that it was just David Axelrod and the snake he always keeps in his pocket?  No.  The White House came out and lied.  They came out and tried to correct the factual record, and whitewash what Obama had said so it would jive with his current line of crap.  Just like they always do.

It was a coordinated, preplanned Obama administration lie.

Why did Obama say he opposed gay marriage?  Because he’s a lying weasel who understands that if he were honest with the American people, they never would have elected him.  And why is Obama trying to whitewash that previous dishonest denial?  Because more and more Americans – especially independents – are abandoning him, and he has to build the support of his core base.

If Obama truly opposed same-sex marriage, as he has said, then why has he now appointed not one but two Supreme Court Justices who will – mark my words – vote for same-sex marriage when the case comes before the Supreme Court?  Obama told the nation a lie to get votes because he knew his actual views would never allow him into the Oval Office.

Obama was a liar from the very moment he announced his candidacy for president.  Let’s go back to his Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT:  Before you go, you know there’s been enormous speculation about your political future.  Will you serve your full six-year term as U.S. senator from Illinois?

SEN.-ELECT OBAMA:  Absolutely
.

In the most massive and far-reaching policy enacted in more than sixty years, Obama’s lies were all over the place.  Obama – who had promised that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 a year – assured Americans that his health care mandate was not a tax increase.  But now he is admitting that the $6 TRILLION in mandates over just ten years is in fact a tax increase as he faces lawsuits from 20 states arguing that the mandate to force citizens to purchase insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional.  Thus Obama told not one but two lies: that he would not raise taxes on middle class Americans, and that his mandate was not a tax.

These aren’t just lies; they are massive lies straight from the pit of hell.  They are the lies of a fundamentally and profoundly dishonest man.  Not only are the mandates a tax increase on the backs of middle class Americans, but it is in fact the largest tax increase in the history of not only America but of the entire human race.

It’s not a question as to whether Obama has lied.  It’s a question as to whether the man has ever told the truth.

At some point, if you have any capacity of honesty whatsoever in your being, you’ve got to get sick of Obama’s lies, and his incredibly cowardly weakness.

ABC Reporter Wonders When Obama And Democrats Will ‘Man Up’

February 5, 2010

So here’s the deal:

ABC’s Tapper Waiting for the Pres to ‘Man Up’

By Don  |  February 4, 2010

ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper irked Robert Gibbs when he questioned whether the president is going to ‘man up’ and make the tough decisions.

Youtube:

A couple of comments from a Free Republic posting put things pretty well.  One said:

I like Jake’s choice of wording around that “Man Up” bit too. The Democrats own all of Congress and the White House and they continue to use George Bush and the Republicans as the reasons things aren’t getting “better.”

Let the Democrats do the unpopular things, as Jake said, and be willing to show the world your real colors so that your party gets voted out in the Fall.

That’s my takeaway.

And the other said:

Surely they don’t expect the guy who voted mostly ‘present’ to make tough decisions.

I’m sure that Barack Obama, Robert Gibbs, and the Democrat Party don’t understand why the Republicans won’t play ball with them.  After all, all they’ve done is demonized Republicans, repeatedly attack them for their “failed policies,” shut them out and marginalized them, refuse to consider their ideas, lie about them, and then demonize them some more.  And all the while they have demanded that Republicans abandon their core principles and embrace “failed policies” that the American people have clearly rejected.

For one thing, Democrats did everything they could to stall Republican progress without bothering to offer ideas of their own – and then attacked Republicans for not making progress:

Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

For another thing, it isn’t true that Republicans have ever been “the party of no” and offered no ideas:

Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along.  Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?

For all the constant whining of the Democrats there’s a saying that applies: “Let them hang on their own petard.”  These damn Democrats undermined the Republican majority and George Bush for years.  And now all of a sudden it’s immoral for Republicans to make their own stand?

As for Barack Obama, all he has done is constantly blame his massive failure on George Bush.  It has become beyond ridiculous: even the election of Republican Scott Brown and the transformation of Camelot into a Red State was Bush’s fault! It is almost as if it has been George Bush, and not Barack Obama, who has been president all along, while poor Barry Hussein has been some powerless, pathetic pawn.  At some point Obama will either stop blaming Bush and take responsibility for his own situation, or else he will be the worst president this country has ever seen – and take the whole country right down the toilet bowl with him.

Lying, Demagogic White House Finally Gets Its Media Smackdown

October 22, 2009

I like the title from Moe Lane best: “White House tries to muzzle media; draws back a bloody stump.”

But Allahpundit exposes the true deceit and hypocrisy of the White House that led to its bloody stump:

Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?

The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too.  And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.

Hot Air does a very good job of showing what Obama and his cockroaches are full of.

The video is a great watch for anyone who likes to see the good guys win and the bad guys lose:

[Youtube link]

The Hot Air piece exposes the pattern of constant lies coming out of this White House.  They are as dishonest as the sun is hot.

The White House’s petulant demagoguery of Fox News has been utterly great for Fox News as their ratings have gone through the roof.  They nearly outstrip all of their competitors combined.  Even liberals are acknowledging that Fox News has been “undamaged” by the demagogic White House campaign against them.

Meanwhile, only 43% of voters would be willing to re-elect this whiner-in-chief.  And he’s seen the fastest drop in the polls of any president in 50 years.

So you just keep demonizing Fox News, you demon.  I think it’s workin’ just great for ya.

Obama “Inflate Tires” Story A Study In Arrogance, Biased Media Coverage

August 10, 2008

Rush Limbaugh pointed this out:

RUSH: The Obama camp continues to push the tire gauge.  I mean, this is incredible.  They continue to push this tire gauge thing as an energy plan.  They claim to have found proof somewhere that properly inflating your tires, if we all did it, would save something like 50,000 gallons or barrels a day or some such thing.  It’s just absurd.  The Drive-Bys continue to circle the wagons around Obama’s tire gauge thing, and then McCain continues to make fun of it…

RUSH: We have a montage of the Drive-By Media circling the wagons on this.

TAPPER:  If engines were tuned up and tires fully inflated, it could save 800,000 new barrels a day.

FOREMAN:  Would it produce the savings Obama is citing: three or four percent in overall oil consumption?  The answer is…yes!

CRAWFORD:  Truth is properly inflating your tires, uh, will do more for, uh, saving money on gas than anything the politicians are going to do right now!

MADISON:  Everybody and their grandmother knows you inflate tires!

At one point, in discussing this last week, Limbaugh said, “You’d think you would have to stop every few miles and siphon out some gas to make room in your tank for all the fuel you were saving.”

Whether we’re talking about the surge or the tire pressure, Obama simply doesn’t seem to have the ability to recognize when he’s wrong.

You get the idea that if Barack Obama were to say that we could stop global warming if we all took our clothes off and ran around naked praying to Beelzebub the media would come running to say, “Brilliant!!!  He’s right!”

The Reuters story, “FACTBOX: Government backs Obama call to inflate tires,” is a classic example of left-wing media disinformation, opening with the statement:

(Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate John McCain has criticized his Democratic challenger, Barack Obama, for advising people to make sure their car tires are properly inflated to help reduce gasoline use.

No.  Wrong.  McCain has criticized Obama for claiming that inflating tires can compensate for not drilling.  They are deliberately misrepresenting the McCain position in order to benefit Obama.  Reuters is willfully engaging in journalistic fraud.

This is what Obama said:

“There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy,” Obama said. “Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!”

The media is fixating on the claim that, “Obama is correct that properly inflating our tires would save fuel” and ignoring the fact that he is factually incorrect on a massive scale in claiming that the resulting savings in fuel would obviate the need to increase our domestic supply of oil.

Anne Mathias, an economist with the Stanford Group, said on Good Morning America:

MATHIAS: Unless everybody in the country is driving, you know, a 1969 Chevy Impala or something like that with the tires at half inflation, you’re not going to realize as much savings as he’s talking about.

But that’s not the overwhelming media narrative, is it?

Jake Tapper of ABC had the following analysis on his blog.  Maybe he should have read it before he allowed himself to be represented by his network as supporting Barack Obama’s claim:

Obviously, Obama wasn’t arguing that inflating tires would reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil — but he was saying such a move would save as much energy as drilling for oil in the continental shelf would provide.

Is that true?

If it does save gas, and it is a common problem, well, then what would the total savings be if we all were a bit more diligent about checking the pressure very morning?

Frank Verrastro, Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), says that it’s complicated, of course.

“The ‘x’ factors here are the fact that Sen. Obama used both tire inflation and tune ups in his remarks, and no one knows what volume you could/would get from additional drilling in the outer continental shelf,” Verrastro says.

As of now, all we have for the OCS are resource estimates, but no production.

Using the website FuelEconomy.gov, Verrastro writes, we can estimate that “the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage) savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%) is 18-19%.  Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day.”

Current crude oil and condensate production in the OCS is about 1.25 million barrels per day. [Editorial insertion: But with 85% of the outer continental shelf off limits, you know that figure ought to be MUCH, MUCH higher - and that's precisely the point Republicans are trying to makeIt's the failure to report this blatantly obvious fact that makes people like myself so furious.]

So… What does that mean?

It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed current output from the OCS.

However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road — as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics — and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says.

“So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output,” he rules. “Finally, without knowing what production volumes could be expected from lifting the ban on OCS drilling moratoria, it’s impossible to assert that taking these fuel savings actions would exceed future offshore oil volumes, and in fact, one might argue that the combination of achieving these savings AND developing new supply would doubly enhance US energy security.”

- Jake Tapper and Natalie Gewargis

Barack Obama is simply wrong.  What makes the story particularly troubling is that so much of the media is deliberately and steadfastly refusing to portray the difference of opinion between McCain and Obama fairly, or to report the facts accurately.

Obama is misrepresenting both how much proper tire inflation would actually save the country on one end and how much oil we stand to gain by drilling offshore on the other.

Should we be regularly verifying that our tires are properly inflated?  Yes, we should – and I do (which by itself disproves Obama’s thesis, because his assumption is that EVERY SINGLE DRIVER is driving on underinflated tires).  But it is simply false – and frankly idiotic – to claim that doing so obviates our need to increase our domestic oil supply.  And when it comes to our domestic oil, we are not talking about thousands, or millions, or even billions of barrels of oil: between Alaska, and our shale oil deposits, and the outer continental shelf, we are literally talking about trillions of barrels of oil.

Why does the media continue to be so patently unfair, biased, and dishonest in its coverage?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers