The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard
It isn't surprising that the conventional wisdom is that the news media have turned on Sen. John McCain. After all, decades of attacks from conservatives have conditioned reporters to believe that they are biased against Republicans -- even when there is scant evidence in the reporting to support such claims. And the McCain campaign has launched an all-out assault on the media, complaining relentlessly about the coverage its candidate has gotten.
On top of all that, McCain historically has been the recipient of the most favorable media coverage of any politician in modern American history. Reporters spent years all but offering to peel McCain a grape. So, just as the media judge a candidate to have "won" a debate if s/he "exceeds expectations," the fact that McCain's coverage hasn't been as hagiographic as expected has led many to conclude that it has actually been unfairly negative.
The truth is that when John McCain says "jump," the media still ask, "How high?" Think about this: When was the last time McCain or his campaign has wanted the news media to focus on something, and they have refused? From "lipstick on a pig" to Bill Ayers, the media have scampered after whatever mud McCain has flung, like a puppy dog chasing a stick thrown by its master. Sure, sometimes they have pointed out that McCain is lying -- and that's tremendous progress for a profession that has spent a decade flatly asserting McCain's honesty. But -- as I've explained in the past -- even as they've debunked McCain's claims, they've too often privileged the lie by allowing those claims to drive their coverage.
And, increasingly, they uncritically quote McCain campaign attacks on Sen. Barack Obama for things McCain himself has done. When a campaign does something like this, the media often point out the hypocrisy, and the attack backfires. But those rules don't apply to John McCain. So when John and Cindy McCain attack Barack Obama for what they describe as a vote to "cut off the funds for the troops," the news media dutifully repeat the charge -- without noting that, by the same logic, McCain also voted to cut off funds for the troops: Obama voted against a funding bill that did not include a timeline for withdrawal; McCain voted against a bill that did include a timeline for withdrawal.
The funding vote has been the subject of some of McCain's nastiest attacks recently. Cindy McCain, for example, claimed Obama's "vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body" and lectured: "I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day. ... I suggest he take a day and go watch our fine young men and women deploy." You would think, then, that media reporting Cindy McCain's purported indignation would note that John McCain also voted against funding. They haven't. Indeed, some have falsely stated the opposite -- that McCain did not cast such a vote. You might even think reporters would ask the McCain campaign if Cindy McCain got a "cold chill" when her husband voted "to not fund [her] son." But there is no indication that any reporter has done so.
But the best indication that McCain has not yet truly "lost his 'base,' " as The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder put it this week, is the glaring media double standard in covering the two presidential candidates' controversial relationships.
Let's start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain's efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s -- when Barack Obama was a young child -- Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama's first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close," and Obama has denounced Ayers' actions as a member of the Weathermen.
A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers -- more than 1,800 this week alone.
Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist's office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary." He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy's bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents ("Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: "Kill the sons of bitches.") During Bill Clinton's presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.
What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:
Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07," includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."
McCain even backed Liddy's son's congressional bid in 2000 -- a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy's history.
To sum up: John McCain is "proud" of his "old friend" Gordon Liddy -- an old friend who plotted to kill one of the most respected journalists in American history, and who urged listeners to kill federal agents and advised them on how to do so. McCain campaigned for Liddy's son, and Liddy has even hosted a fundraiser for McCain at his home.
So McCain's relationship with Liddy is pretty much a direct parallel to Obama's relationship with Ayers. Except that McCain and Liddy have apparently spent time together more recently than Obama and Ayers. And Liddy's extremist activities continued well into the 1990s, at least. And Liddy says he and McCain are "old friends," while The New York Times says Obama and Ayers aren't close. And Obama has never said Ayers adheres to "the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Other than all that, it's a direct parallel.
Yet even as they obsess over Barack Obama and Bill Ayers -- just as the McCain campaign tells them to -- the news media have all but ignored John McCain's close ties to Gordon Liddy. A Nexis search** finds fewer than 100 news reports that have mentioned McCain and Liddy this year.
As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman -- who has criticized Obama's relationship with Ayers -- has noted:
Liddy, now a conservative radio host, has never expressed regret for this attempt to subvert the Constitution. Nor has he developed any respect for the law. ... Yet none of this bothers McCain. Liddy has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns, held a fundraiser for McCain at his home and hosted the senator on his radio show, where McCain said, "I'm proud of you." Exactly which part of Liddy's record is McCain proud of?
While Obama has gotten lots of scrutiny for his connection to Ayers, McCain has never had to explain his association with Liddy. If he can't defend it, he should admit as much. And if he thinks he can defend it, let him.
To repeat:
- 2008 news reports that mention Obama and Ayers: more than 4,500.
- 2008 news reports that mention McCain and Liddy: fewer than 100.
Incredibly, The Atlantic's Ambinder today suggests that the media have not covered Ayers: "To truly drive Ayers into the public conversation, to trick what they consider an irredeemably biased press corps into biting, McCain has three vehicles gassed up and ready to go. ... So far, McCain has done none of those things." There are 1,800 Nexis hits for Barack Obama and Bill Ayers in the past week, and yet Marc Ambinder thinks the media have not bitten on the Ayers "story" -- and that McCain, who is running ads about Ayers, isn't "really serious" about pushing it, anyway. Even Steve Schmidt would likely be too embarrassed to try to claim that the media have not covered Bill Ayers.
Incidentally, Ambinder doesn't seem to have ever mentioned McCain's relationship to Liddy.
Not only have the media avoided stand-alone reports on McCain and Liddy, they consistently fail to bring up the connection when reporting on McCain's attacks on Obama's ties to Ayers, or in interviews with McCain staff who bring up Ayers. The McCain/Liddy relationship is such an obvious parallel -- except arguably much worse -- that it's hard to imagine how any evenhanded journalist could possibly justify ignoring it. Yet it happens again and again. And, needless to say, McCain aides do not get badgered about Liddy the way Time's Mark Halperin badgered Obama aide Robert Gibbs about Ayers.
Just this morning, NBC's Chuck Todd said he is "sure" Ayers will come up during the final presidential debate next week, adding that moderator Bob Schieffer "may feel no choice but to bring it up" in light of the "TV ads" the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee are running. Setting aside the absurdity of the suggestion that a debate moderator is compelled to bring up a topic simply because John McCain is running ads about it, if Schieffer does ask about Ayers, basic fairness demands that he ask McCain about Liddy as well.
OK ... moving on. How about controversial religious figures? Earlier this year, Media Matters showed that The New York Times and The Washington Post had published a total of 161 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright -- and only 12 that mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. That disparity wasn't unique to the Times and the Post -- and it hasn't evened out over time.
161 to 12.
Land deals? Barack Obama once bought a parcel of land from a controversial donor named Tony Rezko. Obama paid more than the land's assessed value -- but that hasn't stopped the news media from suggesting Obama had an improper relationship with Rezko.
Comparatively little attention has been paid to John McCain's relationship with real estate developer Donald Diamond. Diamond, a co-chair of McCain's campaign finance committee, has raised more than $250,000 for McCain's presidential bid and is a "close personal friend" and longtime political patron. For his part, McCain has sponsored two bills sought by Diamond that helped the developer gain what The New York Times described as "millions of dollars and thousands of acres" of land. And McCain helped Diamond buy another parcel of land from the U.S. Army -- a deal that helped Diamond turn a $20 million profit. The Washington Post and USA Today have identified other land deals McCain has facilitated as senator that have benefited some of his biggest donors and fundraisers.
Yet a Media Matters review last month found that five national newspapers had run a total of 39 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Obama and Rezko -- but only seven that mentioned McCain and his donors' land deals:
[S]ince The New York Times' initial April 22 article [about McCain and Diamond], the land deals have been mentioned in only six additional news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post, and have yet to be mentioned on any evening network news program. By contrast, during the same time period, 39 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; and the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports.
39 to 7.
And, of course, there's always Charles Keating. The news media have done their best to ignore McCain's involvement in the Keating Five -- and, when they have mentioned it, they've done so by parroting the McCain-friendly storyline that the scandal turned the Arizona senator into the World's Greatest Reformer. Even this week, after the Obama campaign drew attention to McCain's involvement in the Keating Five with a Web page and a 13-minute documentary featuring one of the regulators McCain pressured on behalf of his political benefactor, the media have paid far more attention to Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers than to McCain's relationship with Keating. And when they have mentioned Keating, they have often questioned the propriety of the Obama campaign's decision to bring up the subject.
Remember: Barack Obama didn't have anything to do with Bill Ayers' wrongdoing. He was a young child at the time. McCain did have something to do with Keating's wrongdoing -- without McCain, the scandal would have been called the Keating Four, not the Keating Five.
And yet the media are quick to dismiss the Keating matter. When the topic came up on MSNBC earlier this week, Andrea Mitchell dismissed it as having occurred 20 years ago. Well, sure. But McCain was involved in it 20 years ago, unlike Bill Ayers' controversial activities, which occurred closer to 40 years ago, and which Barack Obama didn't have anything to do with.
The American people have made clear that they think the most important consideration in deciding who to vote for is the economy. An astounding 52 percent of Americans call "the economy and jobs" the "most important" issue to them in this election, according to the latest CBS/New York Times poll. Terrorism and national security came in a distant second, with only 11 percent.
John McCain and his campaign have made clear that they do not want the last few weeks of this campaign to be about the economy, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, the housing crisis, or the Constitution. They want it to be about personal associations.
Incredibly, much of the news media have sided with John McCain in treating Bill Ayers and ACORN as the most important topic facing the nation. Even worse, they are scrutinizing only Obama's relationships, not McCain's. It's bad enough that they're letting McCain, rather than the American people, set the parameters of the debate. The fact that they aren't applying those parameters to both candidates equally is an inexcusable double-standard.
And it's evidence that John McCain retains the support of his "base" -- the media.
* Conducted 10/9/08 using the search terms Barack Obama and ((Bill or William) w/2 Ayers
** Conducted 10/9/08 using the search terms John McCain and Gordon Liddy
then there's also the "first dude", todd palin, who wants an independent alaska.
the mccain campaign continues to air that totally dishonest ad, still running today, that starts out "who is barack obama?". then it continues "he says that our troops in afghanistan are", then it cuts to obama saying, "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians". which is his sentence chopped in half. he said we want more troops in afghanistan, so that is "not" all we are doing, because civilian causualties inflame the population against us. but the ad clearly is portraying obama as claiming that our troops are indiscriminately killing civilians, and it goes on to call obama "dishonorable". the ad is totally edited, a fragment of a sentence, and out of context.
Like Scarborough said, they will keep talking about it until the ratings come in and only then will they reveal they probably shouldn't have talked about it. Great call, MMFA!
Is Foser actually serious? Is this a serious article?
Has any candidate ever been fawned over more than Barack Obama? Has Foser missed the SEVEN Time magazine covers in the last year? How about comparing the treatment of Barack Obama vs. John McCain on shows like The View and Ellen DeGeneres? How about the "thrill" going up Chris Matthews' leg over Obama? Or the NBC reporter who - overjoyed in his presence - said "it's hard to remain objective" over Obama? Did Foser miss the never-ending fawning biographical sketches by the LA Times on Obama? How about the media totally turning its back to Obama's minimal political accomplishments? How about the media not reporting Obama's lie about the NLRC? (No - it has not been debunked; so spare me) Did Foser see Campbell Brown take a near-even response to last week's debate and claim it was "overwhelming" for Obama?
I could go on and on ...
Let's be honest here. Never has the mainstream media been more in the tank for a candidate than with Barack Obama. It's not even close.
Please, do go on and on. Until I see this happen you have no point...
That's bias? In what way?
That's a screenshot from January! LOL!
Let's be honest here. You're so far off base that I can't imagine you believe what you're saying.
The problem with this from Foser is his piece only focuses on what Foser is focusing on, one side. Which is what MMFA does. And that tends to let some believe that the media coverage is that slanted, when in fairness it is not. Not from what I have seen.
A couple examples, all this hand-wringing about the media not telling us that McCain has also voted against troop funding, ok fine. It is happening, but that doesn't mean that the other side never happens. I saw two distinct news stories last night, on CNN and ABC where they most certainly did put all the votes against troop funding in absolute context. But you won't see that here, you only see when they don't.
Another example is the Ayers vs. Liddy lopsided coverage that Foser details. Well, that is because McCain is stumping and putting out ads on Ayers, and the media is covering it. Conversely, I haven't seen any Obama ads, much to his credit I might add, talking at all about Liddy, so why should the media cover that. If Obama decides to put ads out there or talk about it at campaign rallies, and the media ignores it, then that is a different story. But that is not the case.
So this double standard that Foser puts forth about pro-McCain is only supported by biased and slanted examples that he lays out. Consider that when evaluating it's accuracy.
I saw a news report that was fair too. That must mean all the hundreds of unfair news reports are OK!
If the point has to be explained to you, which is there is no double standard for pro-McCain media at all. When you cherry pick your examples to suit your argument, as Foser is doing here, it only reveals a biased and slanted piece. Unless the "media" is evaluted in totality, meaning all sides equally represented, which MMFA admittedly does not do, then for them to put forth this pro-McCain media myth is misleading at best, and only telling half the story. And there is always the other half.
State your examples of conservative misinformation as MMFA does every day, but leave the editorializing on media bias to those who operate from all viewpoints.
Tommy, will you give the opposite advice to the lying right wing media watchdog-pretender consevative fascist bully groups who scream their "liberal media" lie and/or seek to intimidate the media and others out of busting lying conservatives for their many lies and dissemblies?
...or seek to intimidate the media and others out of busting lying conservatives for their many lies and dissemblies?---SIR
That is what it appears Tommy's job is to do here! He can't intimidate this "other" (MMFA), but instead he uses false logic or sophistry to confuse and redirect the point.
State your examples of conservative misinformation as MMFA does every day, but leave the editorializing on media bias to those who operate from all viewpoints.--Tommy
So an organization which is a "...research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." should't let two of it's people give their opinions on media bias on their own site once a week. But on the other hand, you yourself do so most every day, and you use their site to do it.
It's just Foser's opinion! Now let's shake hands and walk away whistling.
As always, nobody can attack the actual article. They just whine about other stuff.
So this double standard that Foser puts forth about pro-McCain is only supported by biased and slanted examples that he lays out. Consider that when evaluating it's accuracy.
If the Obama campaign suddenly decided to put out a Liddy/McCain ad, the news media would slam Obama for going negative. They'd ignore the substance of the ad, and would only talk about why Obama is doing this-- what makes him tick, is this a change in his "character"? or whatever.
Reason: the American news media is run by Republicans. It really is that simple.
The media are only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them.
I was just reading an article on cognitive dissidenece, and then I see two fresh examples of it.
Thanks guys that realy helps nail it down for me
What Fair and Balanced means to them, the ones who say and blazone that slogan 2 trillion times a day.
If there are 15,000 scientists, climatologists writing and giving papers on global warming with the assertion that said catastrophic warming is man made, and yet there are several dozen who say otherwise, then one would expect that coverage in the media would be .0024 % covering the naysayers and the balance of coverage devoted to the 15,000 that attribute global warming to man made emissions. But no, fair and balanced means that the several dozen recieve at least 50% of the coverage if not an even substantially higher percentage, just to make sure their conflicting voice is heard.
This same logic is applied to coverage of campaign issues. If a report about McCain trying to block an investigation into his thieving pal, Keating, get's 90 seconds then at least 90 seconds must be devoted to some "scandal" connected to Obama. So even though Obama was 8 years old when the bombing was carried out and McGramps was a sitting US senator when he tried to help a thief avoid the law, the scandals are treated the same in the media, when in reality, Obama's seven degrees of seperation from Ayers is a teensy tiny issue, that in no way enlightens the electorate as to his judgement or character, in comparison to what McGramps actually did himself, which shows what a rotten president he would make.
Hope this helps the newcomers to American broadcast "journalism"
Shoes89 says:
"Let's be honest here. Never has the mainstream media been more in the tank for a candidate than with Barack Obama. It's not even close."
Have another glass of kool-aid; you obviously love it.
Foser, I appreciate you pointing out at least a few of the dubious McCain connections being virtually ignored by the MSM: I certainly would consider Black, Davis and Schuenneman to have blood on their hands as well as Libby.
BTW, Regarding Ayers. You could have added that when Ayers turned himself in in 1980 all charges were dropped. He may have bombed some buildings (always evacuated by prior notice), but no blood was spilled except for a couple of their own members in their own home. They targeted empty buiidings. Actual terrorists target people.
If you weren't part of the Civil Rights/Anti-War movement in those years of endless assassinations of political and civil leaders--JFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy--, weren't beat up by cops and National Guardsmen for just expressing your opposition to racial discrimination, voter suppression, lynchings and murders, then the War, eventually the draft, and the atrocities in SE Asia as well as at Kent State, then you can't possible understand the incredible frustration and anger with our government and it's tactics that so many of us felt. While few of us chose as radical a method of civil disobedience as The Weather Underground or the Black Panthers, I don't know anyone who considered ourselves OR them to be "terrorists".
Thanks, Cheo. There's a small squadron of right wing nuts who post here, some admitted VietNam avoiders and chickenhawks who, now in the winter of their lives, find war very glamorous and sexy.
Their complete disgust at these "madmen" who damaged some Gov't property apparently takes all of their energy, as they never have a negative word to say about anything our representatives were doing in our name, as Americans, at the time.
"Thanks, Cheo. There's a small squadron of right wing nuts who post here, some admitted VietNam avoiders and chickenhawks who, now in the winter of their lives, find war very glamorous and sexy."
The lying fascist flag-scamming chickenhawk conservatives, both of the Vietnam era of the past, and of the Desert Storm era, right up to Liar Bush's lie-based Iraq war right now, all believe in and yell loudly the chickenhawk conservative war cry of "HELL, NO, YOU ALL GO!"
I add my chorus with the Col. of thanks for that. There seems to be no empathy anymore, no "walking in the shoes (pun) of history." I wasn't there but I appreciate all those thousands in the streets who brought simple justice in a corrupt war and world.
All told, Ayers and Weatherman were responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S. "I don't regret setting bombs, said Ayers in 2001, "I feel we didn't do enough."
I also respect those who had the courage and fought injustice and corruption, but William Ayers was a coward. Sorry, he doesn't get my empathy.
What do you think makes him a coward, Tommy?
I also respect those who had the courage and fought injustice and corruption, but William Ayers was a coward. Sorry, he doesn't get my empathy.
He was hardly a coward. He definitely walked the walk.
No, cowards are people like Sean Hannity, or Hugh Hewitt, or Dick Cheney, who talk about the glories of the military but never served themselves!
"If you weren't part of the Civil Rights/Anti-War movement in those years of endless assassinations of political and civil leaders--JFK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy--, weren't beat up by cops and National Guardsmen for just expressing your opposition to racial discrimination, voter suppression, lynchings and murders, then the War, eventually the draft, and the atrocities in SE Asia as well as at Kent State, then you can't possible understand the incredible frustration and anger with our government and it's tactics that so many of us felt. While few of us chose as radical a method of civil disobedience as The Weather Underground or the Black Panthers, I don't know anyone who considered ourselves OR them to be "terrorists".
Relative to the civil rights movement, African-Americans regarded the racist white mobs, the KKK, and the pro-segregation groups to be "domestic terrorists", because they terrorized and killed blacks. They are the favorites of extreme fascist racist right wing conservatives like Shoes, Philib, Proud Con-Artist-Servative, as well as the dis-likes of Liar McCain (McCain voted AGAINST the MLK Holiday, and McCain also HATES MLK, and Cindy McCain HATES MLK, too), Racist Hate Hag Liar Palin [Palin's racist hatred of blacks and her strained relationship with blacks can be found at http://www.blackagendareport.com and at http://www.blackcommentator.com in both present and past articles], as well as Jeff Sessions, Trent Lott, Dana Rohrabacher, Mitch McConnell, John Boehnner, Tom Delay, Ron Paul, Condoleeza Rice, Ward "Con Man" Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, etc. Racist Condoleeza Rice denounced MLK and other civil rights leaders as "troublemakers who upset the good white people of the South."
Racist Bush 41 campaigned against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when Bush 41 was the 1964 Republican Candidate for the U.S. Senate in Texas, and W. Bush allegedly called the Civil Rights movement "socialist" during his Yale days. Two years later, in 1966, Racist Republican Ronald Reagan, who was then the 1966 Republican Candidate for Governor of California, told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times that he would have voted against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ifhe had been in either the U.S. House or U.S. Senate in 1964. Racist Reagan called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "...unfair to the South", and Reagan was a racist, and Reagan was a strong supporter of racial segregation/Jim Crow segregation.
To African-Americans, among others, Reagan and other right wing conservatives were then, and are now, terrorists, and racists, among other things, because they opposed the passage of the civil rights laws, and because the right wing conservatives, past and present, favor the repeal or rollback of the civil rights laws, and/or also favor the Supreme Court reinstatement or rebuilding of the Plessy vs. Fergusen decision that legeaized Jim Crow Segregation. BOTH McCain and Palin favor repealing the civil rights laws, and BOTH McCain and Palin are pro-Plessy.
See it real posted:
BOTH McCain and Palin favor repealing the civil rights laws, and BOTH McCain and Palin are pro-Plessy.
Really? Got to call you on this one. Can you provide some links to back this one up?
BOTH McCain and Palin favor repealing the civil rights laws, and BOTH McCain and Palin are pro-Plessy.
"Really? Got to call you on this one. Can you provide some links to back this one up?"
Not yet, but it's only a matter of time before I find them. In the meantime, consider these racist actions by both Racist McCain and Racist Palin:
1. John McCain not only voted against the passage of the MLK Holiday, he actually supported the Arizona campaign to oppose making the MLK Holiday a state holiday in Arizona. Liar McCain now pretends to say that he was wrong to have voted against the passage of the MLK Holiday, but luckily, he was deservedly booed by African-Americans in Memphis at the 40th anniversary recognition of MLK's assasinaton in April. Liar McCain continues to be attacked on black talk radio for his anti-MLK vote, among other things, and black talk radio has increased their war against the McCain-Palin ticket.
2. McCauin has voted to confirm each and every one of the extreme right wing conservative pro-racial segregation/pro-Plessy judges to the federal courts (William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, to name 2 examples of pro-segregation/pro-Plessy conservative judges), AND McCain has voted for the confirmation of 4 pro-racial segregation/pro-Plessy judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, and these pro-segregation/pro-Plessy judges are the late right wing racist William Rehnquist (Rehnquist wrote an opinion that Plessy should have been reaffirmed when Rehnquist was a Supreme Court Law Clerk early in his law career), Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samulel Alito, and the right wing conservative anti-black colored conservative Clarence Thomas, and Thomas is even MORE pro-segregation and pro-Plessy than the 6 I just mentioned.
Concerning Palin's right wing racism and Palin's racist hatred of black people:
1. Racist Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan's 1992 Republican Presidential Campaign during the 1992 Republican Presidential Primary. Buchanan not only favors repeaing the civil rights laws, not only favors reinstating Plessy, but Buchanan once said that "...blacks should be grateful for slavery." Since Palin endorsed Buchanan in 1992, Palin is not only just as racist as Buchanan (and also as racist as McCain), Palin is also pro-segregation, is also pro-Plessy, and she agrees with Racist Buchanan's slavery comments, too. More on Palin's racist sentiments can be found at Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com and at Black Commentator http://www.blackcommentator.com
Speaking of links, here are the links about Racist McCain's anti-MLK votes:
http://www.colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day
Reluctance to observe day
"Senator Jesse Helms (Republican-North Carolina) led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. He also criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism".[9] John McCain voted against the creation of the holiday to honor King, and later defended Arizona Republican Governor Mecham's rescinding of the state holiday in honor of King created by his Democratic predecessor. After his opposition grew increasingly untenable, McCain reversed his position, and encouraged his home state of Arizona to recognize the holiday despite opposition from then-Governor Evan Mecham[10]"
Here's another link for you, asking the question about why John McCain voted against the MLK Holiday. They don't ask why McCain hated MLK. We already know Racist Sarah Palin hates MLK. Racist Hate Hag Palin likely has dreams of shooting MLK from her helicopter.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080707211948AASULJs
Got a third one for you right here, proving Racist McCain is anti-civil rights, pro-racial segregation, and pro-Plessy. Racist Hate Hag Palin is also anti-civil rights, pro-racial segregation, and pro-Plessy.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/34785-mccain-against-civil-rights-agenda
From Color of Change:
On this date, 40 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was
assassinated in Memphis. It's a day when many of us will celebrate his legacy, the values he espoused, and his vision for a better America. Some will talk about the King who challenged America's unlawful war in Vietnam, who found common ground with Malcolm X, and who became more aggressive in his push for improving America. But the media will likely focus a great deal on politicians who give speeches where they try to align themselves with his legacy.
We wanted to make sure that today when Senator McCain speaks, you and your friends and family know who's talking.
McCain will bring his "Service to America" tour to Memphis on Friday, but many people don't know the service he touts includes voting against the federal holiday honoring Dr. King. In August 1983 he fought the holiday, voting to block a piece of bipartisan legislation honoring him that was supported by even conservative Republicans--including Dick Cheney--and signed into law by President Reagan.
McCain went on to resist recognizing a King holiday in his home state of Arizona. When Arizona's state legislature failed to pass a bill recognizing a holiday honoring Dr. King, the governor at the time, Bruce Babbit, created the holiday by executive order. Babbit's successor, Gov. Evan Mecham rescinded the order as his first act in office, doing away with the holiday. John McCain's response? He defended the governor, not Dr. King. (After undoing the holiday, the same governor went on to publicly support referring to Black people as "pickaninnies").
In 1990, seven years after his initial vote, McCain went along with establishing a King holiday. On the campaign trail in 2000, facing questions about his history on this issue, McCain declared he had "evolved."
Looking at the rest of McCain's public record, even recently, it's hard to see much evidence of an "evolution". In fact, McCain has consistently opposed a civil rights agenda:
If John McCain has evolved, he hasn't evolved much. Instead, we see a consistent and troubling pattern. From campaigning against Dr. King's holiday to undermining important civil rights laws, John McCain has not stood side by side with King's vision, he has stood in its way.
Today, we hope that everyone will take a moment to pause and remember Dr. King's legacy, recognizing his contributions of words, deeds and ultimately his life. And we hope that all can see past political posturing (regardless of who it comes from) and embrace the bold, challenging vision that King actually projected. We believe that in doing so, we honor both his legacy and his sacrifice.
This video is also available onYouTube.
Now here's the link relative to Palin's right wing racism and Palin' racist hatred of black people:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=772&Itemid=1
Now, here's the most indicting link of all that proves McCain's racist hatred and McCain's pro-segregation/pro-Plessy views.
http://www.dailygrail.com/blog/9488
http://www.acsblog.org/cat-guest-bloggers.html
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/2007_04.php
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/history/index.html
The fourth link is the most damning, since Racist McCain called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "...the single most dangerous piece of legislation in history." That comment alone says that McCain would seek the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights act if elected.
BTW, Regarding Ayers. You could have added that when Ayers turned himself in in 1980 all charges were dropped. He may have bombed some buildings (always evacuated by prior notice), but no blood was spilled except for a couple of their own members in their own home. They targeted empty buiidings. Actual terrorists target people.... While few of us chose as radical a method of civil disobedience as The Weather Underground or the Black Panthers, I don't know anyone who considered ourselves OR them to be "terrorists".
Good point, and one that is being totally ignored by the MSM. There was never a conviction, and barely a prosecution. If Ayres is a terrorist, then anybody anti-establishment could be framed this way.
Wait until we get the term "emotional terrorist," or "ideological terrorist." Like "government schools," it's bound to happen.
And all day I've been hearing about "that convicted terrorist bomber Ayres" on the news. Or about how he "doesn't regret what he did " and "wishes he could have done more" or "he stood on an American flag on 9/11 and said he'd do it again (Hugh Hewitt.)
These aren't just lies, they are psychotic ravings. As if Vietnam were some kind of spiritual triumph for the country!
Cheo posted:
You could have added that when Ayers turned himself in in 1980 all charges were dropped.
You could have added that all charges were dropped because of a TECHNICALITY, not becsuase he was innocent as you imply. Furthermore, any acts of violence are wrong. It doesn't matter what the current zietgeist was at the moment as you try to justify.
Thank God the sixties influence is on the wane...
He's still not a terrorist. G. Gordon Liddy, on th other hand, was tried and convicted.
Thank you. Nicely said.
Conservatives define telling the truth and/or exposing a conservative as lying as being "liberal bias", and conservatives define rubber stamping right wing lies as truth and/or allowing right wing lies to go unacknowledged as being "fair and balanced". Conservatives are liars, first and foremost.
"I don't regret setting bombs, said Ayers in 2001, "I feel we didn't do enough."
So Tomnmy thinks that that's all Ayers' said because that's all he's read in the MSM. Not true. He has said that "we made a mess of Revolution', and wishes they had stuck with the methods of King, and advises activists today to do just that.
When he says and I say "We didn't do enough" it means that we didn't get the war stopped; we didn't stop the madness. if you read more of his writing you would know that. Whatever we did, it wasn't enough.
Yes he still is very Left. No, he doesn't really apologize for the bombings, but saying "we made a mess of Revolution" is pretty clear to me. It just divided the movement, and divided public sentiment.
It is extremely difficult to actually be biased against McCain. For example:
"McCain displayed blatant hypocrisy today by attacking Obama for voting against a troop funding bill when he himself did exactly the same thing. It is difficult to imagine how he can campaign on honoring the troops when he uses them as political pawns."
That is not a negative piece against McCain. That is a neutral statement of objective reality. Objective journalists bring the real world to their customers, and it is possible in real life for one candidate to be worse than the other. In this election year, the disparity is nearly as great as it's ever been. If the coverage doesn't reflect that, then it's heavily biased.
Jamison Foser used that "peel me a grape" mon bot again. I love it.
See if you think the press is doing this for John McCain:
http://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/diana_krall/peel_me_a_grape/
Peel me a grape, crush me some ice
Skin me a peach, save the fuzz for my pillow
Talk to me nice, talk to me nice
You've got to wine and dine me
Don't try to fool me bejewel me
Either amuse me or lose me
I'm getting hungry, peel me a grape
Pop me a cork, french me a fry
Crack me a nut, bring a bowl full of bon-bons
Chill me some wine, keep standing by
Just entertain me, champagne me
Show me you love me, kid glove me
Best way to cheer me, cashmere me
I'm getting hungry, peel me grape
Here's how to be an agreeable chap
Love me and leave me in luxury's lap
Hop when I holler, skip when I snap
When I say, "do it," jump to it
Send out for scotch, call me a cab
Cut me a rose, make my tea with the petals
Just hang around, pick up the tab
Never out think me, just mink me
Polar bear rug me, don't bug me
New Thunderbird me, you heard me
I'm getting hungry, peel me a grape
Uh oh, looks like Palin's SAT scores aren't ... stellar...
Snoopy you always outdo yourself.
P.S.-- back in those days wasn't 300 like the absolute lowest score you could get?
I guess she signed her name and said "here" which accounts for the high verbal scores! ;)
These SAT scores have to be fake. How would anyone have access to them, for one thing. For another, Palin just couldn't have scored that low. She looks roughly my age, so I can translate the scores. A 425 and 416 would have meant Sara was one of the lowest achieving students in the whole school, and would have meant she could not have gone to any college.
You can request copies of old SAT scores for a fee. And low scores don't necessarily mean you can't go to college. Legacy, anyone?
Having graduated from a school of higher learning a short distance from U of I, I can say, wiith prejudice, that their admission standards may have allowed admission with 800+ SAT. (smile)
and it's amazing what some moron who learned to use a graphics editor last week on a Mac can do. I wont' even begin to explain why the typeset and formating of that form from from 1981 could possibly be correct. Next time you plan to imitate a crash line printe with a bogus font, at least maintain the vertical alignment, and dont' try to hide it with a blur filter..... LOL
Yeah.. bogus right wing media my butt- this is typical of they lying left.
Your credibility might be helped if you'd go ahead and explain your "why".
I'm assuming, "1981 could" is missing a,"n't"?
How do you go from this to your last sentence?
You won't begin explaining - would that possibly be because you can't? Considering the number of spelling errors in your post I highly doubt you could possibly understand typesetting and format complexities and how they vary year to year.
What is Obama's SAT?
Obama's SAT
Tbone wrote:
>>What is Obama's SAT?
Really? That is the best you can do, link to some silly right-wing nut job who states "However, after time has passed and seeing him on his 2nd debate with John McCain it becomes more evident that his information is spoon fed and he cannot answer a direct question without rhetoric and stall tactics"?
To See it Real.
Thanks for pointing out the real Terrorists with such thoroughness.
To Cheo:
Anytime.
I believe we see what we want to see and we hear what we want to hear. When I wear my wingnut hat (the green one with the John Deere logo), I see/hear a lot of left wing bias in the news. When I wear my moonbat hat (the tinfoil one), I see/hear a lot of right wing bias in the news. When I wear no hat, I can't read/hear anything because the shine off the dome blinds me and my hearing aids are attached to my hats.
Hey Oscar, Do your hats have that fake pony tail attached in the back to make you look like you have hair? :-0)
Just the moonbat one. Us John Deere types are of the opinion that God made a few perfect heads and He covered the rest with hair.
Hey Oscar, the chrome dome libruls on this here board already posted that joke. So see, the John Deere hat has nuttin' over the so called Moonbat hat. It's just your bias hat that's showin'. Done any wheelchair square dancin' lately? :-0)
Fergot to mention that the moonbat hat's pony tail is a real pony tail, 'cause somethime I can be a real horse's rear when a whacko from the right (such as Michael the Dolt) raises my ire. Oh, no more wheelchair square dancin' at least until after the election. Too busy politicin' in the neighborhood.
and my apologies to the Colonel (I think) for using the "perfect head" line.
This article got so boring I had to stop, sorry. To me you didn’t disprove the claim the media is for Obama. It’s like any association that comes up towards Obama many in the media (Media Matters especially) have to find an “obvious parallel” to defuse Obama’s issue. I can’t wait to read your article when information about Obama’s cousin Odingo makes prime time news and how Obama used tax payer money.
Shortly after the Weathermen became the Weather Underground didn’t three members accidently blown themselves up? Weren’t they “plotting” to attack a dance at Fort Dix where hundreds of lives could have been lost? Also you didn’t go into any detail of what Ayres ideology of school reform is. So Ayres hardly knew Obama yet gave him a fifty million dollar grant not knowing if he had the expertise to distribute the money properly? No wonder it wasn’t successful.
As for Libby wasn’t he sentenced to twenty years in jail? Why did he only serve four and a half years? The way you talk about Ayres I thought you would have been for Libby (not an Obama association right?) since the comments he made towards government officials that raided the compound ending in seventy six people dead.
When you start writing articles that support McCain over Obama that is when I will believe your story here. If “McCain historically has been the recipient of the most favorable media coverage of any politician in modern American history” is true than I’m sure if he wins the election Media Matters and the likes will change that statistic in no time.
I’m willing to bet I won’t read one article here in the next few days that support Sarah Palin in the Troopergate verdict. Even though two of the main people that lead the investigation are Democrats who support and have contributed (one for sure, Kim Elton) to the Obama campaign.
“McCain historically has been the recipient of the most favorable media coverage of any politician in modern American history” -- MMFA didn't have to back that up, because the "McCain Swoon" in campaign 2000 is well-known to any respectable media observer.
But you're too stupid to even know which website you're on. You're right here, in black and white, telling a liberal media watchdog site to run positive stories on republicans.
AND LOOK AT THE HEADLINES TODAY ON THE WEB SITES MCCAIN GOT BOOED BECAUSE HE CALLED OBAMA A GOOD GUY. BUT THEY HAVE THE PALIN CASE IN SMALL PRINT AND ABC IS TALKING ABOUT HER SAYING SHE DID NOTHING WRONG. BUT EVERY SITE IS SAYING HOW MCCAIN GOT BOOED. AND THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE PUTTING THAT UP IS TO MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD BECAUSE MCCAIN AND HIS PEOPLE WERE GETTING HEAT FOR THAT ONE STATEMENT, PEOPLE IN HIS CROWED SAYING KILL OBAMA. NOW THE MEDIA WHATS TO SHOW MCCAIN AS A NICE PERSON WHO LIKES OBAMA. BUT WHEN HILLARY WAS RUNNING THE MEDIA WENT CAZY WHEN THEY SAID OBAMA DIDN'T SHAKE HILLARY HAND OR WHEN THEY SAID HE WAS TALKING DOWN TOO HER. WELL MCCAIN HAS DID BOTH AND THEY ARE SAYING NOTHING. SAW THE NEW POLL TODAY AND AGAIN IT'S SAD OBAMA IS JUST UP 4 POINTS. FEAR GOT YOU IN THIS MESS WHEN YOU PUT BUSH IN OFFICE AND FEAR IS GOING TOO PUT YOU IN MORE OF A MESS WHEN YOU PUT MCCAIN IN OFFICE .
GET RID OF THE IBM KEYBOARD OR GET AN EYE EXAM!
Andrea Mitchell has an undisclosed conflict of interest in regard to her reporting on the campaign. She is the wife of Alan Greenspan, who was hired by Charles Keating as a consultant in 1985.
According to a 1989 New York Times article, Greenspan wrote a letter that was highly supportive of Keating's management:
"In the press offices of the four other senators, aides have been busy photocopying and distributing copies of a 1985 letter written on Mr. Keating's behalf by Alan Greenspan, an economist who is now the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Greenspan's letter described the management of Lincoln Savings as "seasoned and expert" with a "record of outstanding success."
5 Senators Struggle to Avoid Keating Inquiry Fallout
By PHILIP SHENON, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: November 22, 1989
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D71E3EF931A15752C1A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2>
What about this disgusting 30-second Ayers ad that I saw yesterday? I can't find references to the exact ad online, but it starts off by talking about Obama's "thirst for power" or "lust for power" that led him to "try to hide" his relationship with Ayers, and then when he couldn't "hide" it anymore, he...blah, blah, blah.
Anyway--the ad's repeated references to power-thirsting or power-lusting? Isn't that, duh-h-h, McCain??
I think there's a special place in Hell for the woman who does the voice-overs in the McCain ads. Her voice is, like, the embodiment of fascism. Nazi propaganda used voices like hers. Ugh.
I LOVE IT LOOK AT THE MEDIA AND MCCAIN JUMPING ALL OVER THE TRUE STATEMENT THAT MR. LEWIS SAID ABOUT MCCAIN . IT ALL OVER THE WEB SITES AND THE CABLES SHOWS. I CAN HEAR KARL ROVE WHO IS HELPING MCCAIN.YEAH LET'S GET THIS BLACK FACE UP HERE AND SAY THIS MAN WHO IS HELPING OBAMA IS CALLING WHITE PEOPLE RACIST AND MAKE HIM THE POSTER CHILD WHO IS PLAYING THE RACE CARD.AND LOOK THE MEDIA ARE JUMPING ALL OVER THE STATEMENT AND ACTING LIKE LEWIS IS PLAYING THE RACE CARD. THE ONLY REASON WHY MCCAIN IS DEFENDING OBAMA IS BECAUSE IT MADE HIM LOOK BAD AND THE POLLS WERE SHOWING IT, BUT IF IT HAD WORKED HE AND PALIN WOULD STILL BE DOING IT!!! LET'S SEE HOW LONG THE MEDIA AND MOSTLY FOX NEWS ARE GOING TO BE SHOWING AND TALKING ABOUT HOW LEWIS SAID WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST. IF MCCAIN, FOX AND THE MEDIA SEE THAT IT'S WORKING LOOK FOR LEWIS TO BE THE TALKING POINTS UP INTILL THE ELECTION.
This morning CNN's Rick Sanchez interviewed 3 African Americans who will be voting for Senator McCain. In all fairness one would expect them to also interview 3 pro-Obama African Americans but this was not to be.
Senator Biden stated in Pennsylvania that 100% of McCain ads were negative.
CNN Factcheck stated this morning that this was true but Obama spent about twice the money on advertisements that McCain spent and 50% of Obama's ads were negative therefore Obama and McCain were equally negative so Biden's statement was false.
Also, how does Obama's negativity compare to McCain's smears? True Obama has stated that McCain's campaign was erratic. How does this compare to the attempt to associate Obama with Ayers, Rezko, Richard Daley? It seems to me that many of Obama's ads were an attempt to answer McCain ads. If this is negative advertising it is beyond me.
These are two examples of the media's double standard.