After the New York Times published its story bashing Cindy McCain over the weekend, she said she doesn’t care what the New York Times thinks. We don’t, either. Bravo, Cindy.

We’ve had an upcoming column entitled "A New Low" planned for a while, regarding things in the media we’ve seen said about the McCains or Palins that are really low, but the liberal media keep outdoing themselves, and we couldn’t decide which one was the lowest, and the hits just keep on coming. Maybe we’ll just put a laundry list of those in that column and post it prior to the election.

So where does the money the Obama campaign has raised come from? There are stories alleging that some of the money comes from foreign sources, which is illegal. What about all of the donations under $200, which the Obama campaign won’t reveal the source of? The McCain campaign identifies all of its donors, but the Obama campaign does not. There have been numerous instances of donors allegedly giving more than the legally allowable amount to the Obama campaign. Wouldn’t that be very easy to do if done in the names of persons giving less than $200 apiece? We don’t know if the above is happening, but the fact that there are numerous allegations of improper donations does not speak well for Senator Obama.

Big Media’s and liberal Democrats’ double standard has been illustrated many, many times. One example is the supposed "scandal" over the nine U.S. Attorneys fired by President Bush. These officials serve at the pleasure of the president, who can fire them at will. Big Media and liberal Democrats (yes, we’re being redundant, we know) had a fit over Bush firing what amounts to a handful of the 90-plus U.S. Attorneys. However, when President Clinton fired every one of them but one, Big Media didn’t blink an eye or say a word. The only one President Clinton didn’t fire was Michael Chertoff, now head of Homeland Security, whose job was saved by a plea from then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). It was ok for President Clinton to fire over 90 U.S. Attorneys, but "scandalous" for President Bush to fire nine. Clinton’s firings might have gotten a little mention on the D. C. cocktail party circuit, while Bush’s firings launched a full-scale congressional investigation, a media firestorm, and now the naming of a special prosecutor. What "liberal media bias"?

Do you think Big Media would have ignored the story of John Edwards having an affair and allegedly fathering an illegitimate child, had he been one of the Republican candidates for President? You don’t think that wouldn’t have been the "lead story" on Big Media news "shows" for days on end? If you have doubts concerning that–-about that oceanfront lot in Kansas, we’ll sell it to you really, really cheap, and we’ll throw in that deed to the Brooklyn Bridge you want so badly, absolutely free...

How many times have we heard the Left and Big Media attack conservatives, mainline Christians, and evangelical Christians? If anyone in those groups has a real or perceived failing, then cries of "hypocrite" from the Left and Big Media are sure to follow. You know something? They are right...that’s because all have "sinned" and fallen short...none of us can measure up to the standard of perfection. Then again, you’d have to believe there was such a thing as "sin" for that to be the case, we reckon.

It does remind us of an old joke we heard a minister once tell: a minister was around a group of people, none of whom were churchgoers, and none knew he was a minister. They complained about Christians, how shallow and faulted they were, and one declared, "why would I want to go to church? There’s too many hypocrites!" The minister smiled and said, "Why not? There’s always room for one more."

"It’s all bad"...

There’s a recent saying, "it’s all good." We don’t really care for it, but some like to use it. Big Media’s big saying should be "It’s all bad." To Big Media, at least until the election is over, it is all bad. If Big Media’s Anointed One takes over in January, then a remarkable "change" will take place, and then Big Media’s saying will indeed be "it’s all good."

Senator Hillary Clinton changed her mind about attending a New York rally planned by a number of American Jewish groups to protest the Iranian president, after it was announced that Governor Sarah Palin would be there as well. According to her aides, Senator Clinton didn’t want to attend a "partisan" event. So why was it a "partisan" event only after Gov. Palin was announced as a guest? It wasn’t "partisan" when only Sen. Clinton was to attend? (Later, Gov. Palin got "uninvited" by the organizers, who apparently decided no politicians would be brought in as guests. We can’t help but wonder if the Obama campaign nixed Senator Clinton’s plans to attend after Gov. Palin received an invite as well).

We hope voters who are Jewish will look carefully at their choices for President. If anyone can validly establish why a Barack Obama presidency would be better for Israel than a John McCain presidency, then you win the prize, because we can’t think of one reason why that would be the case. Old habits may be hard to break, but here’s hoping that Jewish voters don’t pull the voting lever for Democrats just because that’s what they are used to doing.

Give a listen to Senator Joe Lieberman, would you? The independent Democrat from Connecticut, who is Jewish, is solidly behind John McCain, and that’s certainly not just because of their collective concern for the security of Israel. And no, we don’t mean to "group together" all who are Jewish, and we know that Israel is not the only issue. Still, liberal Democrats have treated that group as a "given," and we don’t see much advantage to being taken for granted.

U. S. Congressman Alcee Hastings, Democrat from Florida, on September 24 offered this jewel at a gathering of Jewish Democrats in Washington, D.C.: "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you [darn] well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks."

No, really. He said that. Hastings is a former federal judge who was impeached for bribery and perjury by the U. S. House in 1988 (then controlled by Democrats) and convicted by the U. S. Senate the next year, and then elected to the House in 1992. Said Florida GOP chief Jim Greer: "Alcee Hastings managed to attack sportsmen [and women, we might add], African-Americans, and the Jewish community in one sentence."

Senator Obama has tried to move to the "middle" on a number of issues after securing his party’s nomination for president. One example would be his voting "for" the eavesdropping program after being solidly against it for quite some time. Off-shore drilling would be another. Seems the national Democrats are well aware that most Americans aren’t leftists, and aren’t as likely to vote for someone who veers far to the left. We hope that routine is not working, and we really hope most of the voting public is more discerning than that. Still, the closer the election, the more he’s flip-flopping away...

Speaking of flip-flopping, Senator Obama is trying to "back-track" from all those tax increases he really wants to implement if he gets elected. Maybe he realizes the economy will be dead on arrival if he gets his way, maybe he recognizes the current crisis will only worsen with a higher tax burden. That line about "only" increasing taxes on the "very rich"? But we’re talking a 28% tax on the gain from selling your house? Doubling the dividend tax? Greatly increasing the capital gains tax? Increasing the inheritance tax? His shoe of choice these days could be comfortable flip-flops.

If Obama is elected and the Democrats control Congress, look for them to try and bring back the so-called "Fairness" doctrine, a misnomer if we’ve ever heard one. Under that "doctrine," radio stations are required to give equal time to differing viewpoints. If a station has four hours of conservative talk shows, then there must be four hours of liberal talk shows. There isn’t a thing about that which is "fair." Once again, the Left is all for free speech and First Amendment freedoms, so long as we are talking about their free speech and freedoms, not anyone who differs from them. The owner of a radio station should not be dictated to by the federal government in this manner. If this so-called "fairness" is not an intrusion into free speech, then we’ve never seen one.

To their credit, there are Democrats who oppose this doctrine, and recognize it for what it is. But keep in mind, the Left, led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid, will try to make this a reality if they are in power. Not a pleasant thought at all.

If you extend that fairness doctrine "logic" to the internet, if Obama, Pelosi and Reid get their way, we suppose that could mean we would have to have another website entitled "watchbigmedia.com" to counter-balance this site, which would tell you all the wonderful reasons to fill your minds with the propaganda masquerading as "news" that Big Media generates. That could make sense only to the far left.