Fox News and Jerome Corsi, living in the past
It sure felt like déjà vu all over again, didn't it?
No election watcher could forget the summer of 2004, when Fox News repeatedly invited Swift Boat author John O'Neill onto cable prime time and allowed him to air his scurrilous allegations about Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Even before the partisan Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group unveiled its infamous television ads, it was on Fox News where the controversy was birthed. It was Fox News that allowed O'Neill a mostly unobstructed platform on August 10, 17, 19, and 24, 2004, to libel Kerry and to gin up a controversy that eventually swamped the Democratic candidate for most of that crucial summer month.
Then, almost exactly four years later to the dates (on July 31, August 3, 12, and 14), Fox News presented its White House campaign sequel. It welcomed O'Neill's Swift Boat writing partner, Jerome Corsi, to publicize his new attack book, The Obama Nation. Laying out his fever-swamp allegations about Obama's drug use and his supposed connections to Islam, Corsi enjoyed the type of national exposure, courtesy of Fox News, that every author craves.
It was an audience that helped propel The Obama Nation to No. 1 on the bestsellers list, which then ignited wide-scale mainstream coverage for Corsi and his book.
In other words, everything was going according to plan. The sequel had been set up -- had been marketed -- just like the Swift Boat predecessor, and now all conservatives had to do was sit back and watch the fun, as the Obama campaign became engulfed in Corsi-led controversy.
Right?
It hasn't worked that way. The Obama Nation's allegations, as slight and flimsy as they are, have taken a back seat to questions about Corsi's own credibility. In fact, journalists have likely spent more time dissecting the errors in Obama Nation and highlighting Corsi's controversial path, including the hateful, bigoted items he used to post in online forums, than they have focusing on the allegations Corsi wanted to broadcast.
As the conservative National Review Online noted with frustration, "The media narrative thus becomes 'Corsi refuted' rather than 'Obama embattled.' "
Add in the fact that some conservatives have stepped forward to publically denounce Corsi and his brand of slime, beseeching the movement to divorce itself from Corsi's unsubstantiated attacks, and suddenly the sequel is in real distress.
Oh sure, it's selling. (Thanks in part to bulk sales, a right-wing marketing staple.) But in terms of affecting the race, in terms of gumming up the works for the Obama campaign, the book has so far been a bust.
What happened? How did a sure-fire follow-up hit turn into such a trouble-plagued production? And why isn't Fox News' Swift Boat formula working?
Simple. Both Corsi and the Fox News team are living in the past and failed to realize how dramatically the media landscape has shifted since the shady Swift Boat accusers were able to deftly use the media to spread their lies.
First and foremost, the progressive movement has spent the last four years bulking up its infrastructure, and specifically readying itself to respond to media-driven attacks from the right; the way Media Matters for America immediately blanketed The Obama Nation and documented its egregious errors (often floated on Fox News) and also raised doubts about the author's veracity and integrity. And thanks to the larger Netroots community, Corsi hasn't had any breathing room to spread his misinformation.
But there were also key marketplace changes within the cable news industry that affected the Corsi coverage, I think. Because remember that in 2004, Fox News drove the Swift Boat saga; it was practically a co-sponsor of the anti-Kerry crusade, devoting endless hours to promoting the Vietnam-era allegations. By sheer force of repetition, Fox News, then the dominant player in cable news, forced its competitors to not only acknowledge the Swift Boat story, but to go all in as well. And soon all the cable news outlets were treating the Swift Boat saga with Fox News-like breathlessness. (CNN aired nearly 300 segments referencing the topic.)
And just like Fox, they weren't asking the tough questions. Instead, they gave the Swift Boat accusers the same free ride that Fox News did. They became media enablers, too.
Not this time around. With Fox News no longer the dominant cable news king -- and with Fox News no longer driving the campaign narratives -- its competitors opted for a much different approach to covering Corsi. And I think the coverage from the competitors sent a subtle, yet simple, message: We no longer take our cues from Fox News' lead, because they no longer dictate campaign coverage. Instead, we're going to exult in our role as a counterbalance, as a fact-checker, to the Fox News-produced Corsi attack campaign. In fact, we're gonna help pull the curtain back on Corsi.
Just look at how MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer greeted Corsi, as he ventured for the first time beyond the friendly TV confines of Rupert World:
BREWER: You say it's a comprehensive look, and yet there are already online bloggers that are going through this book page by page and picking apart what they see as factual errors. ... If they're going through, and they're finding all of these factual errors in your book, why should we give you the credibility?
CNN's Campbell Brown introduced a prime-time report by announcing, "Obama Nation is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you ever heard about Obama."
And on Larry King Live, Corsi was forced to face off against Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman, who refused to let the author spread his misinformation uncontested.
All the above represented precisely what the press, and most especially the cable outfits, should have done -- but mostly refused to do -- in 2004.
They refused to allow articulate, independent critics onto the national stage to debunk the patently false Swift Boat charges. Instead, the press most often treated the Swift Boat story as a political one, which meant amplifying the partisan charges and then going to the Kerry campaign for a quote, or inviting a Kerry campaign surrogate on the air to debate a Swift Boat liar.
Rather than forcefully labeling the Swift Boat attacks a charade and IDing the attackers as pranksters, and instead of holding the Swift Boat accusers accountable, the press played dumb and abandoned its traditional campaign role.
As Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher noted, "The mainstream press gave the charges -- carried in ads, in books and articles, and in major TV appearances -- a free ride for a spell, then a respectful airing mixed with critique, before in many cases finally attempting to shoot them down as overwhelmingly exaggerated or false."
In the infamous words of former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie, upon being pressed about the paper's Swift Boat coverage in August 2004: "We are not judging the credibility of Kerry or the [Swift Boat] Veterans, we just print the facts."
Talk about abdicating your role as journalists. During the Swift Boat hoax, Downie and his team at the Post essentially walked off the field, refusing to officiate the smear campaign. Wasn't judging the credibility of the previously unknown Swift Boat accusers precisely what the Post and the rest of the press should have been doing in August 2004?
Thankfully, that kind of cowardice has been replaced by actual journalism when dealing with the Corsi sequel. And on TV, I'd suggest that about-face has been fueled by Fox News' fall from ratings grace, as its competitors, flush with confidence, realize they no longer have to follow.
Instead, they can lead.
Of course, the fact that Corsi won't admit or correct obvious errors in his book has only emboldened the press to pose tough questions. His often loopy logic has also not helped him, like suggesting we cannot believe Obama when he said he stopped taking drugs in college because, according to the author, "self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable."
When Corsi stumbled down that twisted path on CNN's Larry King Live last week, Media Matters' Waldman was waiting to pounce:
WALDMAN: You put up on right-wing websites a whole series of bigoted and hateful posts in 2002 and 2003 that you later had to admit to when you got found out -- all kinds of really vile, malicious stuff.
CORSI: OK. If you --
WALDMAN: Now, you say that you've stopped that. You say that you've stopped that and you don't put up those kinds of vile, bigoted, malicious, hateful posts on right-wing websites. But all we have is your word. I mean, do -- can we really trust you? People who do that kind of thing, well, you know, they're not really very trustworthy.
CORSI: We have --
WALDMAN: So can we trust you? Are you still doing that?
CORSI: You have more than my word. You've got the record of everything I've written since then.
WALDMAN: Can you prove that you're not doing it anonymously? Can you prove it?
I'm hard-pressed to recall the last time I saw an author get so thoroughly discredited on national television the way Corsi was at the hands of Waldman. (The encounter simply confirmed why conservatives often refuse to go head-to-head with reps from Media Matters in public settings.)
That undressing proved infectious within the mainstream media, as it began to spell out, fairly and accurately, what Corsi and his book were about. The Associated Press' Nedra Pickler reported, "Corsi suggests, without a shred of proof, that Obama may be using drugs today. Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager but says he quit when he went to college and hasn't used drugs since."
The New York Times' political blog, The Caucus, set aside space to detail Corsi's touting of radical 9-11 theories that suggest explosives detonated inside the Twin Towers were also responsible for the destruction, not just the terrorist-piloted jumbo jets. And Politico noted how Corsi had "left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility."
Is it some sort of collective penance journalists are serving for the media's Swift Boat failures of 2004? Who knows? But it's exactly what journalists ought to be doing when mischief-makers like Corsi climb onto the national stage (ladder, courtesy of Simon & Schuster), and start making unsubstantiated charges about presidential contenders.
Conservatives now whine about the press taking sides, that it's teaming up on Corsi. In fact, the press is simply doing exactly what it should have done in 2004, and that's vet the accuser. Period.
The game has changed. But somebody forgot to tell Corsi and his friends at Fox News.
And people here try to wonder why Media Matters covers some of the stuff they do.
They wonder why Media Matters preemptively discussed these books and their flaws and their authors. They wonder why it's important to cover O'Reilly and others on Fox News getting all bent out of shape over the accurate reporting about the narrowing of the gap between Fox's viewership and other cable news networks.
There are commenters here who can't understand how important it is to have a consistent message about documenting conservative misinformation. They won't acknowledge that media reports that are inaccurate and/or not credible and further the conservative agenda are damaging if they're minor stories.
The game has changed. Media Matters has changed the game. And an awful lot of posters here refuse to acknowledge that fact, just like Fox News seems to be unwilling to recognize that reality. Rush Limbaugh doesn't get it either - just yesterday he was pushing the 'Obama supports infantcide' false meme again, after having done it last week. There are still koolaid drinkers who believe that crapola, but independent voters are tired of that stuff. I just hope they keep up with this crazy talk that is losing them support for the next couple of election cycles. I want to see them crash and burn so that reasonable people can take over after they're kicked to the curb. They need to lose all credibility with everyone. Media Matters has already proven to anyone with an open mind that they don't deserve credibility.
BB is absolutely correct. MediaMatters is one of the best things to happen to the Progressive movement, and to revealing the hideousness of the Right Wing.
The fact is that the Right Wing fears MM, because the Right Wing never has the facts to back up their points. MM thoroughly destroys every Right Winger it ever takes on.
Go, MediaMatters!!!
You guys are way too optimistic. It's scary.
I don't want to be around here when Obama loses miserably in November--it will be even worse at HuffPo or Kos. There's going to be major wailing and lamentation. A lot of lives are going to feel ruined. I feel sorry for the kids who are so hopeful...
You all better face the reality-- the system's currently rigged for Republicans. You can be as confident as you want to of the "facts," but it's futile. There are structural realities here-- as out of Marx and C. Wright Mills-- that make Democratic victories impossible.
Following you posts, I guess it is better than an Obama loses in November than a Clinton.
Contniue to look into the darkness Carlib, I'll take my chances and at least vote and wait for the results. Of, course, nothing is for sure. Ask the Clinton campaign. And FYI, I voted for her in Pa.
BottleBlonde,
I disagree with you on only one thing........
It is NOT FoxNews......... it IS FoxNoise or FauxNoise or FixedNoise......
Other than that..... your post is spot on!
MMFA - Pat yourself on the back. YOU HAVE MADE A DIFFERECNE and this is evidence of that.
CON'S: Quit your whining. If you want to win the argument, MAKE A DECENT ARGUMENT. Stop floating false BS stories, stop presenting rumor and stereotype as if it's fact, and stip relying on people's ignorance (largely because you and FOX misinformed them!) If you can't win on the facts, and stick to what you can back up then YOU DON'T DESERVE TO WIN! And you shouldn't let you mouthpieces embarass you like this!
The game has changed. Media Matters has changed the game. And an awful lot of posters here refuse to acknowledge that fact, just like Fox News seems to be unwilling to recognize that reality.
I can't be that confident. So what if lies are documented? They'll just lie a lot more. It hasn't stopped them, hasn't it?
My predictions: the Saddleback 'cone of silence' event was a watershed moment. It proved three immutable things:
1- The Obama campaign makes bad tactical decisions,
2- Republicans will do anything to cheat and win,
3- the MSM has a disinclination to say anything that will make McCain look bad.
Obama will turn into Dukakis II, and will ultimately lose worse than McGovern in '72.
What MMFA conveniently leaves out, is that they do the exact same thing as Corsi only on a daily basis.
What MMFA conveniently leaves out, is that they do the exact same thing as Corsi only on a daily basis.
Only MMFA speaks the truth and Corsi is a habitual liar.
A fool is a person who cannot distinguish truth (MMFA) from disinformation (Corsi).
Yeah, but so what? You can't beat these people right now unless you are willing to fight and stand up. And that's not happening.
But sorry guys, here's something worse. As long as the media is entirely run by Republicans, the Dems will never win. The onus will always be on them-- at best. And that's on a good day for them!
It's not disinformation and lack of rebuttal that's the problem, it's that the game is rigged.
Bigtime.
THE FUTURE FOR NEOCONS
http://thewisdomofadistractedmind.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
I love that!
See, why are liberals always so much funnier than right-wingers? I mean, repub humor is always so graceless-- they'd end up picking a clumsier, less-deft photo for their lampooning and would overdo the joke.
AA:
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
Shaggles,
I see you have already come to a conclusion about Obama's recreational drug usage explanation by discounting unidentified witnesses who have not yet been identified over testimony not yet given?
Keep up the good work!
Come on AA......
Even you have to admit that unsubstantiated alegations being touted as fact are a dangerous thing to do!
Think about it.... how can we be so sure that BillO isnt still sexually harrassing other women? Or Rush Limbaugh isnt still doing drugs himself? Or Grampy McSame isnt still taking money from the Keating 5 deal or breaking the law by lying about it?
As for that so-called law here in Illinois that would have made it legal for doctors to kill a baby already born..... by saying you think that Obama would agree to that garbage, you are saying that all of us here in Illinois would have been willing as well! Only sick and/or weak minded people can believe that crap!
You best be careful how you libel people without proof!
"I had a difficult youth," Obama said when Warren asked about his greatest moral failing. "There were times when I experimented with drugs."
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2377431,00.htmlYeah, and?? This is common knowledge. The man wrote about it in his books.
How do we know W still isn't boozing it up in the Oval Office, and having an affair with Condi Rice? How do we know he's still not snorting lines of coke, and running around in his Yale cheerleader uniform?
What I wrote about is a scurrilous allegation, just as there are many in Corsi's book. There is no proof, nor evidence that George W. Bush is doing what I wrote about, and there is no proof that Obama is still doing drugs, or did drugs past the time he said he stopped.
Cannon,
What did I say to merit your ignore-ance?
Too bad you can't answer as to do so would show you were insincere in your post. :-)
AA is Jerome Corsi.
AA is Jerome Corsi.
It wouldn't surprise me. After all, Corsi posts a lot of nasty stuff on Free Republic anonymously.....
Uh.. When did Obama say he stopped doing drugs?
According to this excerpt from the "Unfit for Publication" response to Corsi's book, sometime in 1981:
**********
LIE: “Still, Obama has yet to answer questions whether he ever dealt drugs, or if he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or where his drug usage extended into his law school days or beyond. Did Obama ever use drugs in his days as a community organizer in Chicago, or when he was a state senator from Illinois? How about in the US Senate?” [p 77]
REALITY: OBAMA HAS MADE CLEAR REPEATEDLY THAT HE STOPPED USING
MARIJUANA IN COLLEGE, WHICH PEERS HAVE AFFIRMED
Obama Said He Inhaled Pot, But Said He Hadn’t Done “Anything” Since He Was 20. “When I was in high school, I tried pot,” said Obama. “And I won’t say that I didn’t inhale. I did inhale.” He said some of the behavior extended to college. “By the time I was 20, I don’t think I indulged again,” he said. The graduate of Harvard Law School also admits there was a time “I drank six-packs of beer in a single night.” Any other illegal drugs? “I haven’t done anything since I was 20 years old,” he said. “That’ll suffice.” [State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL), 11/9/03]
http://obama.3cdn.net/a74586f9067028c40a_5km6vrqwa.pdf
**********
Face it, AA. Your side is defending a liar.
Hey now.
Senator Obama did drugs, therefore, he MUST STILL be doing drugs. I guess we could take the same step with our current President then correct?
I've been reading accusations about GW here for years. I'm not saying Obama is still on drugs. I would hope he is not.
After all, we know Obama would never falsely claim others are lying about his record for voting against the Baby Alive Infant Protection Act while in the Illinois Legislature. Oh wait. He did falsely claim that and he did lie about voting against the Act. Gosh. Obama caught in another lie and you guys get upset at Corsi about getting the wedding date year wrong!
Didn't I hear a little while back that Obama still burned tobacco rolled into a stick?
Non-issue, but still there nonetheless
Yes very good kudo's all arround.
The koolaid drinkers provide examples of wingnut....ah rhetoric. As repetitive, and unregarding as it can be, this place would be less interesting without them. Simple agreement would be boring, and of little worth. The conversations are driven by the tension they create. Often driven over a cliff, but with no fatalities.
It's still a long way to a new administration. The conversations continue.
Real debate involves taking ONE point and discussing the pros and cons. We need different perspectives, both this isn't what's happening on both the threads and in the press. People who deliberately distort or outright lie about what someone did or said are just useless to talk to.
In the future, the attack machine will die of its own negativity. When a book like Corsi's comes along that has no credibility whatsoever, there isn't any point in discussing its lies with people emotionally entrenched in believing them.
People have to distort and lie when they have no other recourse in their argument. If anything, the media gives entirely way too much time on trying to appear impartial by allowing flawed arguments, distortions, and flat-out lies to go unchallenged by the anchor or host themselves. How many times have we seen a strong right-wing talker say whatever they like because the opposing viewpoint is being drowned out. This is the basis of O'Reilly and Hannity's technique, but I've noticed many pundits adopt the same strategy. Boehlert makes a good point that for the first time it's really noticeable how the media is on to this tactic.
It's like chipping away at a dam with an ice pick.
And the right-wingers are standing in front of the dam as they chip....
yes, but have you noticed that the onus is always on the Dems? That's no coincidence-- it's always Obama who has to "prove" something or other, or has to be "afraid" of this or that.
Guys-- as long as major Republican corporations control the media, and lionize this wretched market economy-- it will ALWAYS be this way. It's hopeless.
The only thing I can disagree with Boehlert here is talking about vetting the author, Corsi. Sure, we could vet him, and get his background, but I'm a firm believer of attacking the message, instead of the messenger. Meaning, there are enough bits and pieces of minsinformation and outright lies and distortions in his book that there is really no need to go after the man. His writing says it all, and can be debunked point by point without too much issue. Attack what he wrote, not the man personally.
Attack what he wrote, not the man personally.
But seeing as what he wrote is designed to attack Barack Obama personally, it IS kinda nice to see Corsi getting a taste of his own medicine. Perhaps it might make others think twice before attempting a hatchet job like Obama Nation.
And if Corsi is successfully taken down, that will affect the credibility of those who have been building up his heap of lies - people like Jeff Christie, Sean Insanity, and M. Rotten Levin.
Well, in this case, the man is tied to his writing, so when you do attack his message, you inevitably end up attacking the person who wrote it as well. But, I still think destroying his message is a lot more effective than attacking the person. If you take down his message, he will lose all credibility (if he has any to start with), and then when he comes out with another book of this nature, he will be relegated back to the small market instead of being embraced with open arms by the MSM.
Anyway, not attacking the message, and going straight for the messenger is a right wing bully tactic, that I would rather not get involved with. Example, Valerie Plame. And think about Scott McClennan's recent book. They didn't go after what he wrote, they went after the man, calling him disgruntled, and a bad employee, and things like that.
Go after the message in this case, and the man will fall as well.
While neither an ad hominem attack or ad hominem defense would win in an objectively refereed forensic match, the ad hominem defense to an ad hominem attack is a potent weapon in the psychological warfare context, as we have here.
Also, the author of an ad hominem attack is in no position to complain of an ad hominem defense to his attack since his hands are unclean and he has opened the door for a taste of his own medicine.
Attack what he wrote, not the man personally.
I wrote in here a year a go warning the Dems that they HAVE to start playing by the same rules as the Republicans - INCLUDING personal attacks - and pre-emptive attacks. If that's what it takes to get elected these days - then that's the game you have to play. PERIOD
It's sad that this is what out political system has come to - but we cannot just bury our heads in the sand and think that being silent is "doing the right thing" because we are "above" it all.
McCain has enough baggage to bury his ass in examples of past scandals and corruption. When will we start seeing negative campaign ads that bring this to the attention of all of America?
Haven't you learned yet that you're outclassed here? Until you feel that you can comment, then defend that comment after a rebuttal, you're better off just reading, and learning.
And who knows? After enough reading, you may have progressed to posting an occasional agreement with AA before school starts in a couple weeks.
The preceeding comment has been orphaned, and in no way is meant to be a reply to any of the comments which now preceed it.
(why aren't all replies to a flagged comment deleted at the same time the comment is? The current procedure can be a little embarrassing at times)
How is MMFA trying to "socialize" the United States again? Specific examples from the website would be good.
And how are they communists again? Please, cite specific information.
Oh wait, you can't. Why? It doesn't exist. Flying off the handle, calling anyone left of say, the KKK, commies and socialists does nothing but expose you for the ignorant human being that you most likely are. There are plenty of conservatives who come on here, argue well, and will win me over on occassion. I'm not holding my breath that you'll be one of those. You're starting to sound like a weak imitation of Rush, Sean, Boortz, Levin, Savage, and all of your other heroes. Keep it up! You'll be discredited soon enough, if you haven't been already.
How much do you love the term "progressive"
What do those three triple sylable words actually mean to you.
Your third statement would seem to support socialism. I don't see that as your intent. Please clarify.
Corsi's book (and--in turn--the touting of it by F*cked News, Limbaugh, et al) reminds me of the ambush question: "Why do you beat your wife?"
"I don't beat my wife!"
"So you deny beating your wife?"
"Yes!"
"When did you stop beating her?"
"I never beat her!"
"So again, you deny every beating your wife?"
And so on to infinity. But this time, Corsi and his bottom-dwelling supporters aren't getting off so easy. Looks like we're finally sick of them beating their wife
Plagiarist.
This episode could have serious consequences for Obama among Evangelicals and religious voters.
Yeah. Because they usually vote for the Dem, right?
One thing rightwingers have traditionally had to fight fiercely against is any kind debate in which their blatant lies are challenged one on one. Rush Limbaugh has been spouting his lies and filth for over 20 years and I have NEVER seen him debated by anyone -EVER! It's been his shield & protector to refuse questioning and allowed him to survive. Now that the rightwing lie machine is sinking faster than elephant feces in quicksand they need to try untraditional ways of getting their lies out there, incuding being debated like Corsi was on Larry King, and it only further sends them sinking.
When Americans were buying the GOP's bull, and 75% of the American public were stupid enough to believe Saddam Hussein and Al Qeada's were in cahoots despite being mortal enemies, it was a successful gameplan and they refused to have their talking points challenged, and as usual the "liberal media" did everything to protect them, but it does seem to be exposed at every turn lately.
Hopefully, not even the far-right tilt of the mainstream "liberal media" can protect the GOP from having their lies challenged this year.
Mary,
Pardon, your condescension is again showing.
It's not 'condenscension' it's reality. The fact is your side uses fear all the time as a means to get votes. Your side cannot win on the issues so you play the fear card at every opportunity. Remember Bush in 2004? Remember the terror color scale being highlighted plenty during the 2004 election season and how - voila! - all the 'alerts' suddenly ceased after Bush won his second term?
Face it... your side relies on irrational emotional manipulation that takes advantage of low-information average voters. Scummy.
AA,
Pardon, your projection is showing again.
A A ,
How many unwanted babies have you adopted? Oh that's right! the pro-lifers responsibilty stops the second Jr is born alive, right! You and the whole phoney-baloney, hyprocritical Pro-Lifers are full of it! Head on over to Malkins site. At least we know that McCain isn't her father, cause he was in the Hanoi Hilton, however the 7th Fleet pulled plenty of liberty in Subic Bay!
Phony alleged "pro-lifers" like Liar A.A., Liar Thomp, NoLeftTurns, etc., only "care" about babies before they're born, but afterwards, if those babies and/or their mothers need food and shelter and/or anything else, they stop caring about them altogether!
back to the topic, Liar Corsi has been proven to be a liar, yet this isn't stopping the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media from throwing him lifelines in an effort to save him from the quicksand.
If I'm not mistaken, AA has posted here that he has adopted children, which I would very much admire in a rabid anti-abortion zealot.
Unfortunately, AA has such a sorry history of being caught in flagrant lies here, that I can't take anything he posts as true.
Corsi's ravings remind me of another famous raver, albeit a bit more fictional than Corsi, Lucky, from Waiting for Godot
CORSI’S SPEECH (apologies to Samuel Beckett)
"Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of O'Reilly and Limbaugh of a personal Rove with a bald head outside the Constitution without Geneva who from the heights of divine Gitmo divine Ghraib divine Cheney who tortures us dearly for reasons unknown with some exceptions but not so fast in spite of the votes the polls the crowds Berlin three-pointers of all sorts in spite of the war but time will tell I repeat in a word in short the swiftboat I repeat it is established beyond all doubt the flagpin the pledge the turban Hawaii and Kenya in Kansas it is established in the public words of Jackson and Wright and Michelle and Ferraro I repeat too black too angry in spite of a God who damns America with some exceptions but not so fast because of the votes of Kentucky and Texas and due to the fame of Paris and Britney in spite of the strides of Ghandi and King but not so fast the public works of Ayers and Malcolm by any means necessary and who can doubt it I repeat it is established no doubt in brief I resume Barack Hussein Osama Barack Hussein Obama bin Laden the turban the flagpin the pledge in a word I resume in short in fine alas alas McCain so white so old fading in spite of the crowds alas the votes bin Laden... abortion... so calm... Edwards... Unfinished."
UPDATE:
Not only is Jerome Corsi a liar, he's also a swindler:
Failed venture follows anti-Obama author
'95 investors sour over $1.2m deal
By Brian C. Mooney
Globe Staff / August 20, 2008
Bradley Amundson was at home in Minneapolis two weeks ago when a familiar face appeared on his television screen. It was Jerome Corsi - a blast from a humiliating time in Amundson's past. "I said: 'Hey, there's Corsi; what's he doing on TV?' " Amundson recalled.
Corsi was on a cable show, promoting his new anti-Barack Obama book, "The Obama Nation," but Amundson knows him in a very different context. Corsi, Amundson, and James M. "Mel" Rockefeller of Arizona were principals of a group that launched an investment venture in Poland in 1995 that eventually lost about $1.2 million, much of it raised from a group of about 20 Minnesota investors, Amundson said.
In his varied career as best-selling author, conservative journalist, and outspoken polemicist, Corsi has become one of the nation's most controversial political provocateurs. But the business deal that went sour before he became famous has made him the target of bitter criticism.
Corsi's role as investor is perhaps the least known of his several careers. And 13 years after the Poland deal, the fingers of blame are still wagging. At least two of those investors won court judgments in sep arate cases filed in courts in Hennepin and Dodge counties in Minnesota against Corsi and his two partners to recoup a portion of the money lost in the Poland deal, but they never collected from Corsi.
"It was basically a worthless document," said one of those investors, David Splittstoesser, a cement contractor from Rochester, Minn. When his lawyer tried to collect, he found Corsi's assets "had been moved into his wife's name . . . There was nothing to get out of him," Splittstoesser told the Globe.
<more>
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/20/failed_venture_follows_anti_obama_author/
Check out Corsi at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/20/failed_venture_follows_anti_obama_author/
What was Corsi doing in San Francisco on July 14,2004?
And WHO was he doing in San Francisco on July 14, 2004?
:-)
Oh, but you are wrong on this one Media Matters. Jermaine Corsi’s book is a very big hit. It not only selling well; Jermaine Corsi has already sold more copies than Nancy Peloci did of her book, die hard Hillary supporters are reading it too.
Aw, check out the PUMA blog and see Barry’s good friend Bill Aryes stamp on the American flag.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/the-anneberg-files-access-blocked/
Wait a minute. We know with clear data that Corsi's book went number 1 on NYT best-seller's list because right-wing organizations (who have tons of money) buy Corsi's book in bulk. The public isn't rushing out to buy that book. And, I'm sure a lot of people buy it not for academic reasons, but for comical reasons. The book is so devoid of facts, it might as well be placed next to The National Inquirer or In Touch at your local grocery store.
Plus, sales or not, the book is laden with falsehood after falsehood after falsehood. The only thing good about this book's sales is the fact that the bank accounts of Corsi and the publishing company become a little larger. The book does not pose any legitimate argument against Barack Obama. Period.
There are a lot of 'products' and 'things' that sell effectively in our world today. Pornography sells well annually. Illegal drugs are sold well annually. Oh yes, and so does botox. The fact that this book sells well means absolutely nothing to me nor any intelligent person who is seeking facts, and nothing but facts. I will endorse a book based on its unbiased clarity, detail, and fact-oriented position if the author is claiming it is written from a stance of academia. Corsi has claimed the book is written as a piece of academia. If that is the case, then you have to immediately "observe" it as a piece of academia, which means you have to look at how credible and true the "content" of the book is, not how much it sells.