On Fox, Mark Sanford "(D)" holds press conference
June 24, 2009 2:51 pm ET by Media Matters staff
(Fox News later correctly identified Sanford as a Republican.)
Previously:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
- County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.
-
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
by Jamison Foser - November 19, 2009 -
Why is Rupert Murdoch so clueless about Fox News?
by Eric Boehlert - November 17, 2009 -
Media Matters: Dobbs, dropped
by Simon Maloy - November 13, 2009
-
-
-
Matthews questions whether Obama is "too darn intellectual, too much the egghead"
1 hour and 9 minutes ago -
-
-
Discussing Breitbart's ACORN tactics, Dobbs suggests Justice Dept. is "dangerous"
2 hours and 29 minutes ago
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
They actually did it again.
Once again, Faux proves to have ZERO credibility.
Really?!?
This is a NON - STORY.
How many times has Chris Matthews ALONE refered to the President as Osama?
Give us a break!
Whenever a Republican does something that might embarrass the GOP, Fox News goes "oopsie!" and puts a "D" next to their name in the initial reports.
What would be the purpose behind that, I wonder? (OK, no I don't.)
Your handle is illiterate, why shouldn't your posts be, too? Apparently, what's in the pot at the end of your rainbow is something the "puppie" left behind that no one wants to step in.
p.s thanks for ruining our country
Because we capitalize the beginnings of our sentences?
" for example your attempt to slander a person's "handle" not taking into account that that very sentence is grammatically incorrect. "
Next time try "does not take into account that that very sentence is incorrect."
" …'Your handle is illiterate, why shouldn't (should not?) your posts be, (incorrect use of a comma) too?' read it with out the contraction, "
Or maybe the poster should read it "without the contraction".
it doesn't (proper use of a conjunction) make sense,(propper use of a comma) does it?
(improper use of an extra "p")
Thanks you for your destruction of my faith in humanity.
re: shouldn't. When used in question formation, contractions are NEVER simply word-for-word replacements of their original meanings. This is a simple fact resultant from the nature of English question formation, which requires a fronting of the first matrix auxiliary verb. Consider the following examples: "Don't you think that house looks nice?" "Shouldn't you be going to school?" "Haven't you been here before?". The negation participle ("-n't") must be moved to the front of the sentence along with its attached stem because it's not a free morpheme. In the sentence's deep structure (the formation prior to question formation), the sentence reads perfectly. I.e., deep-structure: "Your handle is illiterate, your posts should be (imp NP), too." transformation, step 1: "Your handle is illiterate, (wh-placement) your posts should(wh-negation participle) be, too." transformation, step 2: "Your handle is illiterate, why (fronted auxiliary) your posts be, too?"
re: the comma before too. Commas are always, 100% of the time required before sentences which end with the word "too". Even ignoring this fact, comma usage is not part of a natural grammar (linguistic sense of the term, not your silly attempts at prescriptive grammar), so usage is inherently indeterminant.
re: "proper use of a conjuction". No conjunction was used when you said this.
I can think of nothing more classically republican than trying to tear apart someone on some point only to get it more incorrect than they did.
infer
4. to hint; imply; suggest.
Not to mention that any other definition of the term "infer" would have worked in the context of what he said.
Miriam-Webster:
4: suggest, hint <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
intransitive verb
usage Sir Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I. Since then, senses 3 and 4 of infer have been frequently condemned as an undesirable blurring of a useful distinction. The actual blurring has been done by the commentators. Sense 3, descended from More's use of 1533, does not occur with a personal subject. When objections arose, they were to a use with a personal subject (now sense 4). Since dictionaries did not recognize this use specifically, the objectors assumed that sense 3 was the one they found illogical, even though it had been in respectable use for four centuries. The actual usage condemned was a spoken one never used in logical discourse. At present sense 4 is found in print chiefly in letters to the editor and other informal prose, not in serious intellectual writing. The controversy over sense 4 has apparently reduced the frequency of use of sense 3.
Some jokes just write themselves.
"Sloppy grammar" can be a sign of anything. Most often it's a sign that people do not actually speak in conformity to the rules found in English grammar books. Sometimes it's a sign that the speaker or writer didn't receive an education that stressed standardized English rules of grammar.
This just gets under my skin a bit because, as someone who has spent a long long time trying to speak a foreign language with any degree of competence, I'm perpetually frustrated by people who think that because my speech is a grammatical nightmare, my thoughts must be as well. I assure you that my thoughts are just as clear when I'm visiting a foreign country as they are when I'm at home, regardless of my ability to express them.
I'm not saying there's no reason to follow rules of grammar, by the way. There are very good reasons, and chief among them is that many people will assume out of prejudice that you're stupid, uneducated, or low class if you don't.
Whatever you paid for grammar lessons, you're either due a refund, or your teacher is entitled to more money as hazardous duty pay, because they didn't take. My sentence is, in fact, grammatically correct.
Your attempt at "correction" is so riddled with idiocies that you really should have kept quiet instead of proclaiming your ignorance to the world.
There is no reason to read my sentence without (not "with out") contractions. I tried to read your post without the ignorance, and it disappeared.
Learn about conditionals, learn about proper (not "propper") use of commas, and, last but not least, bone up on why sentences start with capital letters.
P.S. (not "p.s.") Thanks for ruining our language. (Sentences end with periods, too.)
People who follow FOX religiously don't really notice, they just take in what they're fed so to speak. Which is the point of it all afterall. FOXES are clever, aren't they......
They must prove to us he is not an alien.
NO!!!!!!! IT'S A NEWS CONFERENCE ABOUT HIS AFFAIR!!!!!!!
The "NUTS" are truly a delusional group.
CNN:Political Ticker
Randy
But that, of course, is different than getting the party affiliation wrong. And different than this situation, but they don't care about the relevance or the truthfulness of their claims. It's to distract us from the story being covered.
You guys need to wake up to that effort of the trolls to derail the thread.
Of course it does not really compare with this very strange habit Fox has of mislabeling politicians in the news for some infamy or another.
But even if Cheney2012 is correct (and it's hard to believe anyone who would willingly choose that alias could be), one circumstance would be one side trying to cover up for their boy as opposed to one side trying to cover up for their boy AND blame the other side. So that's two levels of deceit compared to one. So Fox News are STILL the bigger slimeballs.
Even you could get a job as a Fox News chyron operator, Dr. 'I'm a big fan John Cusack' Matt harley. It's not like it's a sought after job for someone just coming out of the Columbia School of Journalism.
I've never heard of Michael Richards being involved in politics at all.
So you fail this time.
Princess fails every time.
I'm sure hoosier is just assuming that Richards is some sort of liberal because he's an actor? I did read that he's a Mason, not that you have to be any political persuassion to be one, but the ones that I've met tend to tilt further right, than left.
More importantly, since when do private citizens, that never held a political office, have political designations following their name?
So, should we start doing the following:
Elisabeth Hasselbeck (R) another reich-wing plagiarist
More importantly, since when do private citizens, that never held a political office, have political designations following their name?
So, should we start doing the following:
Elisabeth Hasselbeck (R) another reich-wing plagiarist
Boom. Exactly.
Congrats for your continued obsession and continued pathetic failed attempts at making an analogy.
So, princess, are you going make a statement about Faux's chyron, princess, or are you going to defend it, princess? Princess, are you going to continue to be irrelevant and off-topic, princess, or are you going comment on Faux's proven deception, princess?
So, teabagging terrorist anti-American voters who never held office now place an "R" after their names? Is this a new trend we missed? Since when do private citizens who never held a political office have political designations following their name?
I don't remember what office Richards was elected to, though, so there really wouldn't be any reason to put a (D) after his name.
Thanks for playing, you're far too dumb even for the consolation prize.
Michael Richards, no matter his political affiliation, is an actor, not a politician. He is not the governor of a state.
This is just one more in an endless series of GOP hypocrites who preach family values yet are as foul as those they condemn.
Here's your Proof-
http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183%3Aydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID%3A11&query=name+that+party&form_token=3142e4e9aa86d8b674055c5867c9141d&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form#995
In fairness, I will concede that that was just from a quick glance at the blurbs to the links and I did not read all of them. The only one I did actually read was the one where it did show a Republican being named. So I may not be playing entirely fair. But just from what I saw, it looks to me like an awful lot of "here I am proving my argument by showing half the equation."
You gave me the EASY button on that one.
The first article your newsbusters search lists admits that Blagojavich's party was mentioned in the AP article, but in the 3rd paragraph. My heavens! You call this proof!?
You have to wait three whole paragraphs. Wow. That is really comparable.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/04/fox-news-identifies-.html
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/04/bill-oreilly-labels-rep-foley-a-democrat/
Snap!
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/10/fox_does_it_again_identifies_a_republican_as_a_democrat.php
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/03/12/essay-eliot-spitzer-man-without-party
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/06/17/hes-no-eliot-spitzer-abc-cbs-nbc-all-brand-john-ensign-republican
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/06/17/ny-times-sen-ensign-swiftly-identified-gop-disgraced-dems-not-idd-all
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/richard-newcomb/2008/03/05/media-silent-new-jersey-mayors-party-affiliation
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/04/23/chitrib-still-dropping-dem-label-gov-blagojevich
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/04/03/dem-label-still-awol-blagojevich-chitrib-sun-times-coverage
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lyndsi-thomas/2008/04/03/ny-post-silent-nyc-council-speakers-party-affiliation
100s of other examples:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Party+Affiliation+site:newsbusters.org
So you need to show evidence of misbehaving Dems labeled as Republicans. Over and over again.
Or else you have no point.
I figured, "okay, so that is just one bad link"... I went to the second link and there is indeed ample documentation of the Republican Ensign being called a Republican on all of the networks and a reference to the newsbusters Spitzer - again just pointing to the first link you provided without any valid documentation.
I am not going to waste any more time on newsbusters as it does not appear to be transparent or professional in their arguments. If they want to be taken seriously (which does not seem to be the case) by more than just the choir, they need to document to the level MMFA does that provides transparency to verify claims.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Party+Affiliation+switch+site:newsbusters.org
Mmmm-kay.
And so why doesn't KO or HuffPo or any of the Soros-funded blogs pay off some chyron operator at Fox and get him to admit that he's been told to put a D in front of Sanford's name for a few seconds. Big conspiracy, right? Seems like some college would be compelled to get a nice payoff for blowing the whistle on the evil Fox. I mean, Scottie McLellan drank the wine, why not some small-potatoes teleprompter/chyron dude? Plus, he gets himself laid after becoming a liberal hero.
Or the conspiracy theory is he's in on it too to take over the world someday.
You guys are quite entertaining. Really.
This kind of thing would be hard to do accidentally. Plus, they'd have to make the mistake AND nobody in the control booth or on the air would notice it. Right...
Why don't you look at some of the projects Richard Mellon-Scaife funded for the GOP? He traffics in lies.
You have no proof that George Soros funded anything you claim, and even if he did, so what?
It is reasonable to consider the pattern and history regarding this behavior when looking at this incident despite your attempts to marginalize people making that observation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwx8sV1LV1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8C3tR9Yl4g
On the other hand, I went and checked out videos of Blago, and found several where he was identified as "D".
Oops, they did it again.
Darn conspiracy theory foiled again. First I find out extreme heat can weaken metal and now this.
Sucks.
OK? Now will you guys admit this all just silliness on your part? Immature, wacko, conspiracy theory nuttiness.
Or at least come up with a theory you can all agree on. I mean, sheesh, it's not like you haven't had time or enough instances to come with something half-way believable.
The complaint is that Fox is consciously trying to smear the Democratic brand by falsely labeling their least popular members as Democrats.
Smearing an Obama appointee as the former head of FEMA hardly exonerates them from this charge, does it?
To rebut this theory, you would need to show a picture of a Democrat in a scandal, such as Gov. Spitzer, being shown on Fox with an R- next to his name.
Because it's the exact opposite of what you were implying. They put on a Democrat named Michael Brown and said that he let New Orleans drown. You just proved our point spectacularly.
I'll grant you, that it is easy to be distracted by all the ex-employees of the Bunny Ranch working at Fox.
But how come the chyron operator always just happens to "accidentally" substitute an "R" for a "D" and not any of the 24 other letters in the alphabet?
Your attempts at being an effective propaganda apologist are lame.
Your attempts at being an effective propaganda apologist are lame.
You dolts want anyone telling you how silly you are to prove that you aren't silly,a nd you want specific instances of the corollaries. Why can't you prove, after all these years of Fox News grievances, some evidence of malicious intent? Why doesn't someone like Alan Colmes announce to the world that the chyron operator is a paid agent of the Republican party?
Please, keep it up. It's quite entertaining.
I really pity you if this is indicative of what is swirling around in your head. You need some sort of strainer to filter out the sludge before you post.
Hanlon's Razor seems predisposed towards incompetence, but the extensive pattern is very compelling.
Randy
However, when you've built a career on 'family values', actions like these should end your career.
And, yes Hillary should have thrown all of Bill's crap on the white house lawn, changed the locks, and gotten a divorce lawyer.
And who is this "they" you speak of?
What's next, black helicopters?
All these were tagged as examples of "Democrat" corruption.
You see what you want to see.
Fox News (Liars) Air False Caption
Man... "Let me throw in one more apology..." He's throwing apologies into something like an Apology Soup.
He's been studying under Sarah Palin -- remember, she wanted her kids out of the spotlight, too . . .
Will O'Racist provide coverage of Sanford's affair for the next 2 years like he has for John Edwards?
Your obsession with me is pretty spooky, princess.
Yes, she is serious. Princess is the ultimate defender of O'Racist and Faux.
Since when did they switch?
Fox News figures that in many cases, TVs will be on in the background (e.g. hovering over a bar) and no one can hear the yip yapping. So, you see (D), you think "those Dems are at it again" and the spoken "Republican" correction goes unnoticed. Nice job, Rupert.
Ah, only in America. Land of Opportunity.
I have a favorite beach shack in NC that's so close to the SC border, we go there for the all-you-can-eat seafood buffets. You haven't lived until you've gone through one of those lines with one white child and one black child calling you Dad. It bothered us at first. Now it's part of the fun: How many old ladies can we make drop their trays?
Best of luck getting your buds to crawl into the 1900s some year soon.
No worries, bilbo -- being dead hasn't stopped the wingnuts from lionizing Ronnie Raygun; it shouldn't stop 'ol Strom, either . . .
Wish I could say I came up with that line, but I swiped it from a post on a friend's Facebook page.
Tom Brady (D) throws interception to lose Super Bowl.
Tiger Woods (R) wins Masters by 10 strokes.
Twice is coincidence
Three times is enemy action
It's time to send Oddjob to wreak havoc on FoxNews.
"D" me twice shame on News Corp.
Mr. News
If anyone watching this cared about what the guy did, they would research him and find out that he's a Republican.
You idiots try to make arguments out of nothing. Some of you even do stupid stuff like mark someone as dumb by saying that there isn't any such thing as a "democrat congressman." Does "democrat" instead of "democratic" prove that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about? No. It proves that he made a typo or is grammatically unlearned. (But you've now grammatically shown him up, which is something you CAN do, so, of course, his statement is now obsolete because he has poor grammar, right?) I hate you all.
Your reaction to this is proof that our country is retarded and that the future in sight is poor. Get a grip!
Come on, now. Wipe your nose and skedaddle on back to your dressing room and let them finish your hair. We'll handle things here...
The whole "Democrat Congressman" business is not a typo, but has in fact been a source of Republican disrespect of the Democratic Party for years - one that GW Bush even conceded when he managed to lose control of congress for his party and had to start to try to play nice.
Granted, it's a pretty juvenile form of disrespect, but, well, what else would one expect?
Republicans don't get to decide for the Democratic Party what their name should be. The party is the Democratic Party, and they are Democratic Congressmen. Anyone who says Democrat when they should say Democratic doesn't do it accidentally. It's not a typo.
Only a fool would think it's a typo, and not a putdown.
"And if anyone reading this thread cared enough to post their thoughts on it, they would research it and...oh, wait. I guess that isn't true."
Never did I talk about people posting on here. In fact, from what people are saying, they care less about what the republican did than the fact that Fox News labelled him as a democrat.
Never did I say that the "D" was a typo. There's the off chance that it was a typo. But it's FOX NEWS. Even if it was a typo, someone saw it and said "Oh, that works well anyway."
"Democrat congressman" is a sign of disrespect? Oh no! Can't handle a little disrespect? Maybe you shouldn't be spouting out your opinions then (if you're so "gosh darn" afraid of the disrespect). And to the guy below this, of course the republicans don't get to decide the name of the Democratic party. But someone obviously knew what he meant by the term "democrat," instead of "democratic," when they responded to him. There will always be disrespect. Get over it.
To "solon" : I'm brainwashed? That makes me laugh. You watch major news networks and stuff your face with their bs; and then hate any opposing network. Well done. You've managed to be like every other american citizen, worrying less about what the candidates (congressmen, etc.) say rather than how they are portrayed by the media, their age, where they went to college, their drug habits, etc.
If you want some independent news, the only one I can think of off the time of my head is The Real News (therealnews.com). They did an interview of Howard Zinn and I'm fairly certain they run on peoples' donations.
Why shouldn't you trust popular media? Read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky.
Both parties were not the same in the last election and, though I didn't vote for either, I would still agree that Obama was the better choice. But, unfortunately, due to the overwhelming stupidity of both parties, a lot of good candidates never get a chance because the popular media and the candidates' opponents portray them as "extremists."
Yes. FOX NEWS is biased. What do you want? Extremely biased? Biased to the point that they will "accidentally" switch a letter to make their opposing party look bad? Yes. All of that works. The semantics are just a way for you to make an argument out of nothing. Well done.
That's that. Have fun getting angry and posting nonsensical replies.
Seriously? Your opening line in your first post here is "You all are stupid." and you act surprised that you got a largely non-substantive response? What you are doing is called trolling. Trolling often gets that kind of response. None of this should surprise you and I really doubt that it does.
If you start posting with a little more respect and a little less condescension and namecalling, I think you may be surprised if some civility breaks out. I am not encouraged by the chip that seems pretty well established on your shoulder.
No one said they could not handle a little disrespect or that they feared it. That is a strawman argument. Pointing out to someone that they are being disrespectful (however bluntly) is really doing them a service. Armed with that knowledge, the offender then has a choice to continue being needlessly provocative (if the action is indeed innocent) or continue insulting people if that was the intent. If it bothers one to be corrected, then he/she should simply stop making the mistake. Don't blame everyone else if they keep pointing it out. Like I said, he/she has a choice.
Pure attempted mindreading fail. You obviously know nothing about Solon. Have you ever considered that we are talking about the incorrect party affiliation of Sandford because...ummmm..it's like the topic of the thread. Maybe? Duh?
Comedy classic
I suspect that you don't have any you can list, otherwise you probably would have named them in your post. Most likely you're one of those enlightened souls who doesn't vote because "both parties are exactly the same anyway."
I don't quite think you understand the purpose of this website. "So what if they're biased"? Well, "biased" is a generous interpretation for what appears to be deliberate misinformation. Why does it matter?
Well, some of us still think that if the media had done a better job in 2000, we wouldn't have been saddled with that idiot Bush running things for eight years, and the concomittant regime of torture and wars of aggression. That kind of upsets us. Personally, I'll never recover my innocence about the motivations of my fellow Americans.
And since we're in a propaganda war, you can count on us to fight.
I think you're just bitter because dirt placed higher than you in an IQ test.
Does "democrat" instead of "democratic" prove that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about? No. It proves that he is using a GOP talking point and is incapable of independent thought.
Thanks for playing. You failed miserably, but thanks for playing.
You presume baselessly that E2RWN cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
I chalk it up to a combination of laziness and bitterness. I don't think chyron operators are dumb, but perhaps this is an argument to finally put the "R" key away from the "D" key and on the right side of the keyboard!
Interestingly enough, my "R" key on my keyboard broke in 2006, right before Election Day. Coincidence?
Oddly enough, yes. Yes. That does seem to be the case. I think you've hit on something there.
I think it is pretty funny when you oddly accuse people of here essentially being grammar Nazis, when calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party is a common attempt at a slur that has been around and quite well known for a few decades now. So not only is it a great indication that this guy using it does not know what he is talking about, but it is apparent that you are ignorant and/or disingenuous at best with regards to the subtext in his remarks, so I would hardly expect you to understand any of this or even pretend to.
Understand a slur? Yea, that's just impossible to understand that "democrat congressman" is a slur. For one, it's stupid. It's almost as if someone made it out to be a slur just to anger his buddies. There's no reason to be offended:
Republican --> Republican Congressman
Democrat --> Democrat Congressman
See the connection. No, my friend. It is not a slur; it's just a misnomer, which is due to the lack of unity between the logic used in naming a congressman who is also a democrat and naming a congressman who is also a republican.
First, another family values Republican gets caught, and Fox news identifies him as a Democrat. Fox News can be counted on to do this every time a Republican is caught. Now, when people say Fox is really just an answer to "liberal" CNN and MSNBC, I'm going to ask how many times those networks falsely identified a scandal-plagued Democrat as a Republican.
Second, remember that during Bill Clinton's impeachment, Republicans, including Sanford, who was in the House at the time, claimed they weren't impeaching Clinton over "the sex" but over "the lying."
So, third, as far as we know, his staff lied and said he was on the Appalachian Trail and that they'd been in touch with him. His wife lied and said he was away writing, later changing her story to say he was on the Appalachian Trail. I suspect that these people didn't lie on their own -- it should be clear that they said what HE told them to say. So, can I expect impeachment of Sanford over "the lying"? Can I expect the media to start a resignation clock or condemn him and demand that he be impeached? Somehow I doubt it.
And here's another complaint: Headlines all say "Sanford admits affair." No, he didn't. It's an admission if, after he's done talking, people say "oh my God, I had no idea." If you're merely confirming what people already know because you've been found out, it's not an admission, it's just the first time you haven't lied about what you were doing.
To answer your question about whether the media will publicly condemn Sanford or demand his impeachment . . . if the past is any indication, Sean Hannity will seek to excuse Sanford's affair on the basis of his stress following combat [John McCain], while Limpballs will attempt to make it the fault of Obama in some manner. The rest will simply make it a one-day story and move on to the latest missing white girl . . .
Oh, and then he'll call anyone who DOESN'T forgive Sanford "hateful." Like he did to people who trashed Limbaugh when he was EXPOSED as an Oxycontin addict.
*L=liberal I=idiot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXFaElFI_s0
"HAPPY NEW YEAR AND LET’S HOPE THE MAGIC NEGRO DOES A GOOD JOB. LOVE JEN AND JOHN C." Another FOX mistake eh?
Let's look at the conversation that would have to take place if all you haters out there are right:
PRODUCER: "Man, another political sex scandal. And he's a Republican! Oh crap, we'd better do what we can to convince anyone who receives this information from our network that he's a Democrat... Get on it, will you?"
DIRECTOR: "But sir, don't you think that someone will notice? I mean, so many people hate us! I'm sure if we switch his party it will be on the blogs in no time. Not only that, but other news shows would love to show off that we made a mistake and hint that we're involved in some kind of conspiracy!"
PRODUCER: "You're wrong. All we have to do is get the idea out there, and the entire country will believe it. Nobody will notice. And if they DO notice, they'll surely give us the benefit of the doubt. We can fix the mistake and nobody will be the wiser! The beauty is that we will have fooled absolutely everyone, and there will be 330 million people who now think Sanford is a democrat. It's foolproof I tell you! We'll bring down those bastard Dems once and for all!! MMMMMWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
DIRECTOR: "Yes sir.... <sigh>"
Most of you on here are absolute, 100%, A-One nut-jobs.
Do you think it equally absurd that a news organization could be that inept in such a seemingly specific way?
The Gov. of a state skips town for eight days and cannot be located by wife or staff. No wonder he pushes states rights.
The Gov. was forced to take the stimilus by State represenatives. Unemployment in South Carolina was at a record high.
I wonder if Hannity will call for his resignation.
After all Hannity wanted Senator Obama to resign from the senate becuse he attended Rev. Wrights church.
Fox is a joke.
You're telling me that the 5 other Obama news networks don't ever make mistakes??
Look on the right and get a life. Fox apologized for the mistype.