Are ABC and CBS Really That Stupid?

Last night Governor Palin was on with Greta Van Susteren reacting to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. During the interview, the topic of President Obama’s Sputnik moment came up:

VAN SUSTEREN: Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is still with us. And Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik moment that the president talked about. Do you agree with him? Do you — and is this our moment?

PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.

So I listened to that Sputnik moment talk over and over again, and I think, No, we don’t need one of those. You know what we need is a “spudnut” moment. And here’s where I’m going with this, Greta. And you’re a good one because you’re one of those reporters who actually gets out there in the communities, find these hard-working people and find solutions to the problems that Americans face.

This was in response to the following statement made by the president:

“Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”

Of course the media couldn’t resist the temptation to find something to complain about in Governor Palin’s remarks. This time, as much as they tried to dig, they couldn’t find anything destructive. So CBS tried a new tactic: distorting Obama’s comments to make what he said seem less radical.

In a post titled: Palin: Sputnik Led to Collapse of Soviet Union CBS notes:

Palin seems to have a misunderstanding of the analogy. Mr. Obama was suggesting that when the Soviet Union beat the United States into space in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik, that victory spurred Americans to push science to the limits that led directly to the American moon landing in 1969.

Mr. Obama used the analogy to compare the U.S. to China and India and to suggest that those countries’ investments in, for example, green technology and information technology should spur the United States to research and development better technologies so that the United States may remain a world leader. He wasn’t cheering on the former Soviet Union.

Let’s start with the title. No, Governor Palin did not say that Sputnik exclusively led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Governor Palin said that the debt the Soviet Union incurred resulted in its inevitable collapse. The Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway sooner or later, but the debt it incurred in the race to be the first and on it’s weapons programs attributed to its demise.

As for the comments from Obama that CBS tactically distorts, President Obama’s point is that we need more government spending to compete with other countries or we’ll fall behind just as we fell behind the USSR with Sputnik. Obama is saying we need to spend even more money we don’t have, even though we can’t afford it, just for the sake of being the first no matter what the long term consequences are. He points to Sputnik and the Soviet Union as an example. Governor Palin thinks long term and points out that spending money we don’t have can lead to economic ruin and Sputnik is an example.

Enter Mr. Genius on ABC News

And if the space race contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Palin says, wouldn’t then the “Sputnik Moment” be a good thing.

Do those people read the things they write before they post? Of course the collapse of the Soviet Union was a good thing, but that is not the debate. The debate on hand is about spending money we don’t have.

If I run a business and take out loans to spend on things I can’t afford so that I can be perceived as being ahead of my competitors, my business will eventually go bust. The demise of my business may be a good thing for my competitors who couldn’t care how it happened but it would be a disaster for me, my family, and my kids. However, my competitor won’t use my business model as an example to his employees on how to manage a business. Not if he has a brain.

The collapse of Soviet Union was a good thing for us, not for the Soviet Union. When it spent all the money it didn’t have on Sputnik, it didn’t exactly plan to collapse in the process. Governor Palin’s point is that President Obama is using the Sputnik analogy as an example of how the United States should spend money we don’t have for things we can’t afford just to be the first. Doing so would lead to the ultimate demise of the United States.

So you tell me, Mr. Berman, is that a good thing? Of course not. Unless of course that’s the goal of the left and the liberal media.

Governor Palin believes we need long term solutions and to not do things for the short term just because it will make us feel better for a couple of days and that’s the example Governor Palin takes from the Soviet Union. Governor Palin sees Sputnik and the USSR’s demise as an example of how doing something without considering the long term consequences can lead to the collapse of a nation. Obama sees Sputnik as an example on how it’s OK to spend money you don’t have without considering the consequences.

As it turns out, the media is not only extremely bias they are stupid too.



(224 Posts)

Leave a Reply