Blitzer said McCain "knows what negative campaigning is" because "he was the victim" of it -- but he was also the perpetrator
SUMMARY: CNN's Wolf Blitzer asserted that Sen. John McCain "knows what negative campaigning is ... 'cause he goes back to 2000 ... when he was the victim of a lot of negative campaigning." Blitzer didn't note that in both his 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, McCain himself has engaged in negative campaigning against his opponents.
On the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asserted that Sen. John McCain "knows what negative campaigning is ... 'cause he goes back to 2000 ... when he was the victim of a lot of negative campaigning." However, in suggesting that McCain's only experience with negative campaigning is the attacks that have been leveled against him, Blitzer ignored not only the negative ads that McCain ran against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and Sen. Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign, but also McCain's extensive negative campaigning during the 2000 Republican presidential primary. During that race, McCain admitted to using negative advertisements against then-Gov. George W. Bush and his campaign admitted to making phone calls that were perceived as negative against Bush.
A January 29, 2000, New York Times article on the 2000 Republican primaries reported, "At a town hall meeting in Nashua on Thursday, Senator John McCain rallied the crowd with the wish that in the final week of campaigning here, ''We won't be having any negative ads.' '' On February 9, 2000, however, the Times reported on a negative advertisement McCain was running against Bush. The Times evaluated the ad and concluded, "Mr. McCain's placid demeanor only partly masks the vehemence of the advertisement, which contains a fairly dramatic dig at Mr. Bush, at least as far as Republicans are concerned: that one of his newest commercials 'twists the truth like Clinton.' In the exchange of attack ads this week, Mr. McCain appears to be holding back less than Mr. Bush."
On February 11, 2000, the Times reported that McCain called for an end to the negative campaigning between him and Bush and said, "I'll pull down every negative ad that I have." The article, titled, "WAR OF WORDS; Spotlight Turns on Ugly Side of Politicking," quoted his pledge:
"I'm calling on my good friend George Bush to stop this now," Mr. McCain said. "Stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this. He should stop it. I'll pull down every negative ad that I have. I want this thing stopped and get this campaign back on the level." [Emphasis added.]
A February 16, 2000, Times article noted that McCain had, in fact, pulled a "sharply negative advertisement." The article stated:
With polls showing Mr. McCain either behind Mr. Bush or running neck and neck, the senator enters the last days before the crucial South Carolina primary with a serious tactical disadvantage. Not only does Mr. Bush have more money, but he is free to pour unlimited funds into the state because of his decision not to accept federal matching funds. And his own campaign efforts are being supplemented by mailings, phone banks and radio advertisements by an array of conservative groups bitterly opposed to Mr. McCain.
The McCain campaign, by contrast, has to abide by the federal spending cap and is near the limit in South Carolina. So it is trying something unconventional in politics -- not battling negative with negative. Aides said Mr. McCain had no second thoughts about his decision last week to pull a sharply negative advertisement against Mr. Bush off the air.
Media also reported on phone calls that the McCain campaign made in 2000. A February 23, 2000, article in the Times reported on phone calls made prior to the Michigan primary and reported that "The script provided by the Bush campaign reads: 'Gov. George Bush has campaigned against Senator John McCain by seeking the support of Southern fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views.' '' The Times reported that McCain's 2000 campaign manager, Rick Davis, asserted that the campaign "made the calls late in the day as polls were closing in the Michigan primary, which Mr. McCain won by six percentage points." The article reported:
Mr. Davis acknowledged that the campaign made the calls late in the day as polls were closing in the Michigan primary, which Mr. McCain won by six percentage points. Earlier in the day, after Mr. Bush had complained about the calls, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, Howard Opinsky, denied any involvement.
Asked about the Mr. Opinsky's earlier denial, Mr. Davis said the spokesman had not been told of the calls.
A March 3, 2000, CNN.com article reported that "McCain had first disavowed knowledge of the calls, but days later admitted he had understood and stood by their content."
On the March 5, 2000, edition of Meet the Press, McCain was asked about the calls. According to the transcript, found via Nexis, host Tim Russert first played the entire audio of the call:
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This is Catholic Voter Alert. Governor George W. Bush has campaigned against Senator John McCain by seeking the support of Southern fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views. Several weeks ago, Governor Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones has made strong anti-Catholic statements, including calling the pope the anti-Christ and the Catholic Church a satanic cult. John McCain, a pro-life senator, has strongly criticized this anti-Catholic bigotry, while Governor Bush has stayed silent while gaining the support of Bob Jones University. Because of this, one Catholic pro-life congressman has switched his support from Bush to McCain, and many Michigan Catholics now support John McCain for president.
McCain responded to the clip of the call by claiming, "That is absolute fact," and later in the segment, he stated:
McCAIN: I was paying for calls that stated the facts. The question that he asked me was, "Are you running calls that are -- that accuse Governor Bush of being anti-Catholic or practicing racial bigotry?" I said no then. I say no now. We were running factual statements. Those are far different from the kind of phone calls that were run by the Bush campaign which had very interesting allegations. So I repeat, we ran no calls and I paid for no calls that accused him of anti-Catholic bigotry. The calls were statements of facts which he authenticated when he apologized.
McCain has campaigned negatively during the 2008 primary campaign as well. As Media Matters for America has noted, in a December 28, 2007, press release, McCain's campaign announced the release of its TV ad "Consider," which includes a quote from a Concord Monitor editorial that read, "If a candidate is a phony ... we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate." Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin reported on his Time.com blog The Page that the ad was the "first negative ad by any candidate besides Romney." In a December 28, 2007, post on ABC News' blog Political Radar, Matt Stuart reported that Romney responded to the ad, saying: "It's an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It's nasty. It's mean spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Sen. McCain than it does about me that he would run an ad like that."
In a January 29 article about that day's Florida Republican primary, The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear and Perry Bacon Jr. reported that the "angry tone between [Romney and McCain] extended to the airwaves, as McCain launched a new negative radio ad." The Post noted that "McCain's new radio ad mocks Romney's economic record as governor and questions his electability, with an announcer saying, 'The bottom line: Mitt Romney loses to Hillary Clinton. Republicans lose. We can't afford Mitt Romney.' "
McCain also criticized Romney in numerous Web ads: "Experience," released January 1; "Foreign Policy Alert," released January 2; "Leadership," released January 4; "Mittsurfing," released January 24; and "A Tale of Two Mitts," released January 28. In two of the ads, McCain attacked Romney for allegedly "chang[ing] positions" on issues ranging from "the Bush tax cuts," abortion rights, Second Amendment rights, and even "[o]n being a Republican."
Additionally, as Media Matters noted, McCain ran a negative advertisement criticizing Clinton's support for a $1 million earmark for a museum at the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, located "at the site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival" in New York, although McCain himself had skipped the vote on removing the earmark.
From the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
JACOBUS: Look what John McCain did in the primary. He came out of nowhere with no money. So you can't say that this is a guy who did it with pollsters and consultants and focus groups.
John McCain is the can -- I mean, the man is the message on this one. He didn't even need a lot of money to get where he is, so --
BLITZER: He knows what negative campaigning is --
JACOBUS: He knows.
BLITZER: -- 'cause he goes back to 2000, when he was the -- when he was the victim of a lot of negative campaigning.
STEPHANIE CUTTER (Democratic strategist): Right. He was the subject --
JACOBUS: He knows the world. He knows democracy. He knows what this country is about. He understands the Senate. He's the ultimate outsider's insider. So he's a very formidable candidate. And Clinton or Obama is going to have a very tough time against John McCain.
BLITZER: We gotta leave it there, guys. Thanks very much. A good discussion.
From the March 5, 2000, edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Here's the Catholic Voter Alert.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN [audio clip]: This is Catholic Voter Alert. Governor George W. Bush has campaigned against Senator John McCain by seeking the support of Southern fundamentalists who have expressed anti-Catholic views. Several weeks ago, Governor Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Bob Jones has made strong anti-Catholic statements, including calling the pope the anti-Christ and the Catholic Church a satanic cult. John McCain, a pro-life senator, has strongly criticized this anti-Catholic bigotry, while Governor Bush has stayed silent while gaining the support of Bob Jones University. Because of this, one Catholic pro-life congressman has switched his support from Bush to McCain, and many Michigan Catholics now support John McCain for president.
RUSSERT: Let me go through the scenario of exactly what happened.
McCAIN: Could I respond to it first, one second? Could I respond?
RUSSERT: Please.
McCAIN: That is absolute fact. I stand by it. I've said it publicly. I've said it in every arena that I've been involved in. That's exactly true. And when Governor Bush apologized for not speaking out, that authenticated that message, so --
RUSSERT: What happened was when the press learned the ad was being made --
McCAIN: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUSSERT: -- the calls were being made, here's the scenario. And I want to give you a chance to talk about it because this is important.
McCAIN: OK. OK. Thanks.
RUSSERT: "McCain campaign denied any knowledge of the calls." That was Monday afternoon. On Tuesday afternoon, "McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky said the campaign is 'not making any such calls.' "
It went on to Tuesday night. David Gregory said to you, "He had allies making calls criticizing you. You had allies criticizing him."
McCain: "Not so. No, that's not so. The calls were made that I had anything to do with -- although I don't know who paid for them -- had to do with pointing out that Governor Bush did go to an institution that prohibits racial dating, that is anti-Catholic." You knew who was paying for that call.
McCAIN: I was paying for calls that stated the facts. The question that he asked me was, "Are you running calls that are -- that accuse Governor Bush of being anti-Catholic or practicing racial bigotry?" I said no then. I say no now. We were running factual statements. Those are far different from the kind of phone calls that were run by the Bush campaign which had very interesting allegations. So I repeat, we ran no calls and I paid for no calls that accused him of anti-Catholic bigotry. The calls were statements of facts which he authenticated when he apologized.















Poor, poor McCain......
I used to actual feel truely sorry for the disgusting attacks that McCain endured at the hands of the right-wing fringe.....
But now that McCain is the nominee he seems to have forgotten just how he was fodder for the media who now have little choice but to back him....
Lest they must deal with Barack.....or gasp...Hillary as the next POTUS....
The only way that won't happen, is a perfectly timed terrorist attack.....
It won't make McCain prez but it would keep Barack or Hillary out....
Conspiracy theory you say......... probably
Only in your deluded mind is the media unfair to Republicans. Only to the brainwashed minions of the Limborg hivemind does that statement elicit anything but guffaws of laughter. Just because its repeated endlessly on Planet Wingnut doesnt mean it makes any sense at all. Read it, memorize it, take it to heart and stop embarassing yourself
Actually, polls show that the vast majority of the American people think that the media has a liberal bias. Polls consistently show that. You're in the extreme minority on this issue.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
"...polls show that the vast majority of the American people think that the media has a liberal bias. Polls consistently show that. You're in the extreme minority on this issue. " Rinohunter
That's a pretty good minority to be in. Here are some more stats to help you with your power in numbers feel-good excuse for stoopidity;
From the site I linked to--
More than three-fourths of Americans - 78 percent - believe in angels, up from 72 percent in 1994. Belief in the devil has also grown - 70 percent of Americans believe in the devil, up from 65 percent in 1994.
Leprechaun and Bigfoot surveys are still too close to call, but I'll be getting you the numbers as soon as they're available.
That's because religion is more like an opinion or like party affiliation -- one can change or be persuaded to change, as a recent Pew survey shows Americans do, and often:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/
Thus criticism and even ridicule are appropriate modes of discourse.
Being black, or latino, or asian, or gay, or (perhaps) a woman -- i.e. a member of a "minority" -- is not subject to persuasion, Exodus International notwithstanding.
It's sort of like me trying to persuade you not to make foolish arguments: It's just your nature.
Maybe the Colonel is bigoted against willfully ignorant adults who insist on holding on to the ideas of Children, rather than being bigoted against religious person.
I'm a religious person, and I think believing in angels, the devil, or a 6000-year old Earth has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with maintaining an infantile view of our planet and our place on it. Sorry if that insults anyone, but I don't see any reason why I should respect stupidity.
If I'm a religious person I must believe in God? Really? Who wrote that rule. and what other rules do you wish pass down to poor ignorant unenlightened me? Maybe I believe in many gods. Maybe I believe in The Force. Maybe I believe that we are all bound spiritually to all living things. But if I don't believe in God, I am not religious, huh?
If I do believe in God, I have to also believe in devils, angels- what else? Saints? Ghosts? Ghouls? Witches? Warlocks? Dragons? Vampires? What?
Please clue me in, oh Keeper of All Rules Religious.
Bigot? I've been called that before, at this very site, by others who don't really understand what the word means. I only posted some statistics from a survey, just as you did.
You're welcome to come here and fling your poo, just don't act all delicate and offended when it splatters back on you.
"Belief in the devil has also grown - 70 percent of Americans believe in the devil, up from 65 percent in 1994."
Colonel:
Those numbers are terribly misleading because they probably include people like myself. I did not not believe in evil supernatural beings until the advent of FOX News but with the steady stream of evil characters paraded nightly on FOX it is hard not to conclude that Satan and his evil minions do not reside there. ;>)
...it is hard not to conclude that Satan and his evil minions reside there. ;>)
Sorry for that double negative...
Col.
Looking at the poll, it says that it was based on a sampling of 519 people. We don't know the exact statistics.
The interesting thing about this is, that the belief in Angels, Heaven, Hell, and the Devil does not mean that people have lost touch with reality, it simply means they believe in something supernatural. If one cares to look, there is lots of anecdotal evidence of people having close encounters with supernatural beings and other unknown phenomena.
Atheists believe the universe was created out of nothing. Atheists believe that life issued forth from non-life. These beliefs are as unproven as Heaven and Hell. They might even be more so as atheists have nothing beyond their belief to back up that belief.
To dismiss the vast majority of people in the U.S. simply because they have a belief in God, Heaven, Hell, or Angels does nothing in my opinion other than make non-believers feel smug. You might as well rail against the wind because it doesn't change any arguments. You are entitled to your beliefs as are they.
"...that the belief in Angels, Heaven, Hell, and the Devil does not mean that people have lost touch with reality, it simply means they believe in something supernatural."
"supernatural" means outside of nature, or reality. I never said or implied that religious people have "lost touch with reality", no more than the other poster implied that those who believe the media has a liberal bias are out of touch. we both noted surveys, you take from them what you want to, and expose your own insecurities.
" If one cares to look, there is lots of anecdotal evidence of people having close encounters with supernatural beings and other unknown phenomena. "
Anecdotal evidence being what believers in the the supernatural depend on. It's not really evidence.
"Atheists believe the universe was created out of nothing. Atheists believe that life issued forth from non-life. These beliefs are as unproven as Heaven and Hell. They might even be more so as atheists have nothing beyond their belief to back up that belief."
You're correct as far as the origins of the universe being unproven. There are different theories that fall into the possibilities that all of the scientific evidence points to. To say that these might be "more unproven" (??) is a statement that's difficult even to answer only because it's so logically flawed.Something can't be "more" or "less" unproven, but scientific theory is much more probable than faith based explanations.
"To dismiss the vast majority of people in the U.S. simply because they have a belief in God, Heaven, Hell, or Angels..."
I think you missed my point entirely. I wasn't dismissing anybody, only making the point, in response to Rinohunters post, that majority opinion with no supporting evidence isn't a very strong argument.
Let me put that in another context that may be less emotional than religion for you;
You may see majority opinion of experts cited where there are disagreements in details in a specific field, for example, on Climate Change, where serious peer reviewed studies confirming the science outnumber agenda driven and paid-for deniers. This is legitimate.
What you won't see is a scientist promoting his personal theories on, say, evolution, by citing a telephone survey of the general public to indicate that a "vast majority" agree with that scientist.
Interesting points, though.
If you know anything about statistics, you'd know that a sample of +500 people can be used just fine, depending on how it's done.
Conservative apologists will insist that Talk Radio isn't a factor, but that denial is not credible. Most local talk radio markets are totally dominated by conservative programs. (In Nashville, there are NO liberal talk shows.) They will reflexively point to Network News and Newspapers as examples of that mythic "Liberal Media". Even if we were to concede this point, which has more impact; a newspaper that is picked up and discarded after a few minutes, Network news that people might watch for fifteen minutes a day, or 24/7 openly biased talk radio programs which can be listened to while working and driving? The answer seems obvious to me.
You're in the extreme minority on this issue.
The only thing in the extreme minority, Rinohunter, is functioning brain cells in your head.
Weird Zombie,
Do you ever say anything that makes any sense? I'm guessing that you were probably a little wasted when you wrote that post, so I'll let that one slide.
Listen, Solon, I've come across your type so many times that it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. I'm sure you could say the same about who you might assume my "types" are... but I'm basing "your type" on what you say and how you say it, and not because you are merely a liberal.
In this specific instance, you lose all credibility by not realizing there is a liberal media bias... in fact, McCain sought to ensure that with "The Fairness Doctrine" - only in the mind of a liberal is attacking free speech a means to "fairness."
In any case, when so many left-wing attack dogs get caught up in scandals that the liberal papers either barely mention, or bury on page 10, while proudly outing Republicans on page 1 for even minor slips of the tongue that can be turned into huge flame wars, to even suggest there is no liberal media bias has to mean you have no objectivity, no credibility and are just here to fight right-wingers because it makes you feel like more than just an ordinary nobody.
It's more important to accurately describe the way of the rightwinger than to be bothered if some adherent of the scurrilous rightwing worldview is offended.
RH,
You crack me up. From the flight suit moment, to the constant nicknames for McCain, to your own network, Republicans are beloved by the corporate media.
Did you see McCain on 60 minutes get the free pass about his waterboarding flip? Did you see McCain having the press over for a BBQ? Have you noticed the lack of stories on the 60 minutes blackout in Alabama when they were airing the Seligman (sp?) story? How many MSM flip-flop stories have we seen? How about any of the stories about Bush's political goals for the surge not being met? How about all the stories that claim FISA is no longer in place because of the PAA? I haven't seen many stories about Rep. King's comments, have you?
By the way, voting for McCain?
I've heard nothing from the MSM but about how violence is down in Iraq! But what I actually don't hear is about how it's only down to the levels of 2004 and 2005 -- years of pure hell and terror for Iraqi civilians.
Iraq is non-functional, not just disfunctional. We're the only thing making it appear -- and only merely appear -- functional, and we're the ones who cause and perpetuate the country being non-functional because we create the ground for insurgency and civil strife.
Time to leave. Iraqi's will sort it out for themselves.
OK, here's your chance to spread the good news. You've consistently held on to the belief that there is good news to be told from Iraq but that there is a "liberal" conspiracy to withhold this in formation from the public.
Tell it. But try not to tell us about schools that have been painted or that the citizens of Baghdad now have electricity for 4 hours a day.
Are you aware of the fact that we lost 8 people yesterday?
RINO the media expert
"They have hardly reported on any of the good news in Iraq or the recent decrease in violence. I don't even support the War in Iraq anymore, but even I can tell that the press isn't giving the whole story."
How one person can profess such comprehensive knowledge on the entirety of the media and render such verdicts is beyond me. Unless you head a media study group or you're citing a study done by one, you have no idea. Flipping on the TV after work and surfing the crap that's served up by cable news will not make you an expert on the state of the entire media, nor will daily visits to MMFA or Newsbusters. So which best describes you?
"Well coverage of the Iraq War has been overwhelmingly negative overall..."
Well, Rino, ever stop to think that may be because, overall, the Iraq war has been pretty negative...
The media has always like McCain. The reason they have always liked him is that he has criticized his own party over and over again. The media likes any politician who criticizes Republicans. But now that McCain is the Republican nominee the liberal media will turn against him. It has actually already happened.
If people are turning on McCain, it's because he's deserting the positions he's personally held for years to pader to folks like you, Rinohunter. People who will only support candidates who toe the COMPLETE conservative line, and are too stupid to think for themselves.
That's why McCain's candidacy is doomed - not because of what is being reported about him in the media, but rather because of the nasty stuff being said about him on right-wing talk radio and by morons like Ann Coulter.
Step One: Defeat Hillary, the only candidate with a chance to beat McCain. Mission Almost Accomplished.
Step Two: Defeat Obama. Mission to be Accomplished, without too much difficulty, between August and November, 2008.
The MSM is so obviously in the tank for McCain- excuse me, "Maverick Straight-Talking War Hero" McCain, it's not even funny.
Negative ads are standard operating procedure in politics. But most people agree that the attack ads against McCain that Blitzer is referring to were particularly negative.
But why are they a bigger issue NOW than in 2000- when highlighting the sleaze might have actually put the spotlight on the campaign responsible for it?
Why, because that would have hurt another media darling of the time, GW Bush, of course.
Talking about negative ads against McCain in 2000 NOW stinks of wanting to have it both ways- it's "safe" to discuss them NOW, because doing so may serve to shield McCain from negative ads from Democrats (not that the Democrats would ever stoop to Bush's level) while not doing anything to damage Bush. Sorry, no fail. The media has no business being "outraged" by the 2000 Bush attack on McCain eight years after the fact. The time to put the spotlight on this stuff was March 2000, not March 2008. Now, its just in the service of getting McCain elected, not highlighting negative ads.
I've come to the conclusion that a good part of the reason John McCain has been treated delicately by the media is because of his POW status. I heard Bob Dole the other day talking about McCain's legendary volcanic temper and essentially what Dole said was that his colleagues cut him some slack because, as Dole put it, McCain had been locked away for 5 1/2 years. I think that McCain's POW status has given him a ceratin protective shield that other candidates don't have. Certainly one could argue that Barack Obama's race and Hillary Clinton's gender might also afford them some built-in protection, too, but in McCain's case I think his POW ordeal has given him some protection.
One other thing is that according to a recent article in The New Yorker, McCain comes across very well face to face with the press covering his campaign. Apparently he makes himself very accessible and comes across as a regular guy in private. To think that some members of the media are not in some way influenced by human considerations is a fallacy.
Irony,
I think you made some great points.
Um, wasn't John McCain a former POW in 2000? If so, why was the media so willing to let the Bush-Rove slime machine roll over the "war hero" back then?
Clearly, it's because they liked McCain, but they loved Bush. So McCain wasn't worthy of media protection against Bush, but he IS worthy of such protection against Obama or Clinton.
This has got a lot to do with McCain being a Born-Again Corporatist stooge than being a former POW. He's been a former POW for almost forty years. He's only been a right-wing lapdog for a few months.
After MMFAs blatant screw up last week on the Glenn Beck reporting, nobody in their right mind should believe what MMFA posts, EVER.
Why hasn't there been a correction reported?
I'm confused now. CompliantConsent is telling me not to believe anything on MMFA EVER, because he thinks there was one error.
But CD has posted nothing but lies,dittohead talking points and glaring mistakes for as long as I've been coming to this site, so by those standards, I should never believe anything it writes (EVER!!!)
I'm not sure what to do.
Don't leave out "shamelessly linking to his own blog because he's begging for someone, anyone to visit his pathetic stinky poo poo blog to try to make the site traffic numbers look bigger than they really are".
It's 5:00 somewhere, Col. How bout we get some fried chicken and a beer?
"The worst part about all of this is that no one is less surprised than I am. I've been predicting for months that a mere mention of Obama will have conservatives branded as racists and bigots" --- Glenn Beck
Making a joke about Obama being the anti-christ constitutes far more than "a mere mention of Obama's name." Are tasteless jokes like this what you watch the news for?
"Why hasn't there been a correction reported?"
Becks rant happened last night. How hasty of a response do you demand? From what I've seen, MMFA typically responds to any mention of their name by media sources, Olbermann, of course, included.
From your POS blog:
"UPDATE: MEDIA MATTERS CLOSED ALL COMMENTS WITH THEIR REPORTING ON GLENN BECK AND JOHN HAGEE AND DID NOT OFFER A CORRECTION!!"
Wow, no kidding? ALL COMMENTS on ALL ITEMS from March 5th, 6th and 7th ARE NOW CLOSED. MMFA closes the comments on EVERY ITEM after everyone has had a chance to have their say. Typically it's closed a couple of days after posting the item. Don't get all whiny if you're not on the ball.
Because they were right and as usual you are full of delusional nonsense and havent a CLUE what you are talking about. You are the most worthless poster on this site and that is saying a lot.
Bush should not by "shoved" out of the White House, but rather "perp-walked" out in hand-cuffs. Cheney too.
And I've been sick of Bush since he sat in that classroom, with that "holy s***" look on his face knowing that his life-long buddies and business saviors, the Saudis, had blown up the WTC.
"That [Bush spoke at known religious zealot's Bob Jones' Bob Jones University] is absolute fact. I stand by it. I've said it publicly. I've said it in every arena that I've been involved in. That's exactly true. And when Governor Bush apologized for not speaking out, that authenticated that message, so --" JM
then lacks belief in the rightness of his actions.
"I was paying for calls that stated the facts. The question that he asked me was, "Are you running calls that are -- that accuse Governor Bush of being anti-Catholic or practicing racial bigotry?" I said no then. I say no now." JM
It's a waste of time to be suprised by these no confidence conservatives, their apologetic ideology at its very core values only material gain for the individual. Theres nothing to champion when your entire worldview is predicated on economic hedonism.
RH
According to the latest Zogby poll the number of Americans who beleive in a liberal media bias is 64%, but the same poll said 97% of Republicans think there is a liberal bias. You all hear what you want to hear.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
Nerzog,
And 90% of that 30% get there news from Faux, Fair and Balanced.
97%? Wow, that's a sad commentary on the "head in the sand" Republicans today who can't realize that corporate control of the media has blinded them to reality.
But as long as Rush, Sean, Glen, and Bill-O repeat it ad-nauseum, then it must be true, by golly!
I think we need to be careful about throwing around spurilious accusations about brave, heroic figures in politics. Media Matters (very little) continues to put this kind of stuff on its website. How about some reflections on how the media handles real issues instead.
http://www.wnbc.com/politics/15562646/detail.html