Fox's Hemmer failed to challenge GOP strategist's false and misleading statements about Obama and flag, flag pin, Senate record
SUMMARY: On America's Newsroom, Andrea Tantaros stated: "Barack Obama refuses to salute the flag. He refuses to wear a flag pin. He's been named the most liberal senator in the United States Senate right now." Bill Hemmer did not challenge her statements, the first two of which are false and the third of which echoes a National Journal rating given Obama that was based on a limited number of Senate votes selected by National Journal staff.
On the May 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Republican strategist Andrea Tantaros asserted that "the Democrats do a great job painting themselves as liberal and elitist" and went on to repeat several conservative talking points that are either false or misleading, none of which were challenged by Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer. Tantaros said: "I mean, [Sen.] Barack Obama refuses to salute the flag. He refuses to wear a flag pin. He's been named the most liberal senator in the United States Senate right now." Tantaros' assertions regarding Obama "refus[ing] to salute the flag" or "wear a flag pin" are false, and her claim that Obama is "the most liberal senator" apparently refers to a National Journal rating that is based on a limited number of Senate votes selected by National Journal staff as purportedly indicative of ideology.
Refuses to salute the flag
Tantaros baselessly asserted that "Obama refuses to salute the flag." While Tantaros offered no support for her assertion, her claim echoes a smear of Obama circulating in chain emails containing a photograph of Obama that purports to show him not placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the photo in the email, in which Obama was standing but did not have his hand placed over his heart, appeared in Time magazine and included a caption that indicated that the photograph was taken during the national anthem -- not the Pledge of Allegiance.
As Media Matters for America noted, Washington Post "fact-checker" Michael Dobbs wrote in a November 2, 2007, item about the email: "Contrary to the e-mails attacking Obama for disrespecting the flag, the candidates were not reciting the pledge of allegiance. They were standing for the national anthem." Dobbs also wrote: "Asked whether Obama normally puts his hand over his heart while listening to the national anthem, Obama spokesman Bill Burton replied by e-mail: 'Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous.' " Indeed, other photos show Obama with his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
Refuses to wear flag pin
Tantaros falsely asserted that Obama "refuses to wear a flag pin." In fact, as Media Matters noted, in the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, Obama said, "And let me just make one last point on this issue of the flag pin. As you've noted, I wore one yesterday when a veteran handed it to me, who himself was disabled and works on behalf of disabled veterans. I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins."
"[M]ost liberal senator"
Tantaros' assertion that Obama has "been named the most liberal senator in the United States Senate right now" echoes a conservative talking point frequently repeated in the media that stems from the National Journal's 2007 rating, which was based on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale."
As Media Matters has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, and here), among the votes Obama cast that purportedly earned him the National Journal's "most liberal senator" label were those to implement the 9-11 Commission's homeland security recommendations, provide more children with health insurance, expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and maintain a federal minimum wage. When asked by Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris about the National Journal's 2007 vote ratings during a February 11 Politico/WJLA interview, Obama himself criticized its methodology by noting that it considered "liberal" his vote for "an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress." American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norman J. Ornstein has also criticized the National Journal's rating of Obama as the "most liberal senator," calling it "pretty ridiculous."
Media Matters has also noted that the National Journal admitted to having used flawed methodology in the publication's previous rating of then-Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry (MA) as the "most liberal senator" in 2003.
From the May 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
BOB BECKEL (Fox News contributor): This time around they say that -- in fact, Newsweek, you know, wrote a cover story and the McCain campaign took great offense and said, "What are you suggesting? That Republican presidential candidates win on negative campaigns?" I can give you the answer: Yes. But --
HEMMER: Well, Andrea, what about this? Is this the strategy from a -- from a GOP perspective?
TANTAROS: You know, I love how Democrats blame Republicans. "Oh, it's Republicans trying to paint the Democrat as liberal and elitist." I think the Democrats do a great job painting themselves as liberal and elitist. I mean, Barack Obama refuses to salute the flag. He refuses to wear a flag pin. He's been named the most liberal senator in the United States Senate right now. He prefers to share his views about Americans in San Francisco. I mean, this guy -- and there's no proof, Bill, that he's a uniter in the Senate. He's the most -- one of the most partisan senators. So really, I don't see how it's Republicans' fault.
BECKEL: Well, the --
TANTAROS: The Democrats just nominate the wrong people.
HEMMER: The list you tick off is addressed by [Fox News contributor Susan] Estrich the following way. Bob, gentlemen, chime in on this: "Mud sticks. Things get worse, not better, if you ignore them." If you're advising Obama, do you address them?
BECKEL: Exactly right. Look, the things you ticked off there -- by the way, last I checked, San Francisco was in the United States.
Two Republican essentials: a flag pin and a pacifier
Columbus, Craigslist isn't what most rational people would call a "source", you numbskull. There is a section where people can post comments and link to pictures, that's where some right-wing nut posted the picture. So your question should have been "What do you expect from right wing nuts?", and I would answer "very little", and you rarely disappoint.
Now pay attention, it gets very boring explaining this sh*t to you.
I like this version of that aircraft carrier photo, where someone put Bush in an outfit that was far more appropriate for him, based on his actions on 9/11 - a bunny suit:
http://www.looptvandfilm.com/blog/commander_bunny_pants.jpg
All this talk you might hear from McCain about how he's going to conduct a clean campaign without engaging in attack politics...well, sorry, but that ship has sailed. Of course, McCain doesn't have to personally slime Barack Obama because he knows he has minions to do it for him. If John McCain had any integrity in his brittle old bones he'd call out FOX and little second rate talking heads like Bill Hemmer. But, no, John McCain is going to sit back and reap the benefits of insulting attacks such as this one, which many moronic FOX viewers will believe, I am sure. John McCain and FOX deserve each other. Both are spineless liars.
The whole point of having political organizations back you is that they do the dirty work for you, without those words coming out of your mouth. I agree with you.
I certainly hope the OP is not suggesting that is isn't a two way street....
Priests molest, cops kill in cold blood...that a soldier could lie is not out of any realm of reason. I'm not impressed with people. Titles or not. I think we as a society put too much stock in the integrity of certain occupations. That said McTorture lost any respect I had for him when he voted for the torture bill to quiet Limbaugh and the other freaky zealots on the low end on the am dial. Putting a flag on Adolf Hitler changes nothing, putting a uniform on Charlie Manson does the same
Then again, I'm not wearing a flag pin so what the F do I know
Missouri Democrat -
I think you and I are around the same age. The only thing that kept me out of 'Nam was a medical deferrment. I was ten pounds under the Army's weight minimum, and still recovering from emergency surgery to remove my spleen earlier that year - which explained why I was so skinny. You wouldn't know it to look at me today - I weigh more than twice what I did when I took those physicals over 35 years ago.
I think it's horrible how so many returning vets have been treated over the years, as opposed to those who had their daddies pull strings to keep them out (like Limbaugh) or in safe spots in teh National Guard (like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush).
WZ I'm guessing we are about 5 yrs apart in age as I just turned 50 this year. My brother was old enough for the draft but was lucky enough to draw a high number and they stopped the draft before his number came up. However I did serve in the 80's and 90's in the USMC and USNR respectively (Desert Storm). I remember even though years have gone by my exact words when I got the call to go to Desert Storm and I quote "I don't mind giving my life for my country but I sure as hell hate to think I gave my life for 25 cent a gallon gasoline." I knew even back then it was for the oil Iraq has under it's soil and not just a few lies from Kuwaitis who said they saw "babies" being thrown out of incubators and left on the floor to die.
Granted Saddam was a bad SOB but as the saying goes in American diplomatic circles "He may have been an SOB but he was our SOB." Just as OBL is a bad guy but hey when we needed him to help beat Iran he was "our SOB" once again.
Yes I really resented the Repubs when they put on that little charade with the bandaids and the fact that I know some of them who had them on were honorable vets of our military. I hope they are happy now that they have demeaned my service and the service of other vets some of which they probably served with and undoubtedly owe their lives to. I know none of my ribbons were just "given" to me for being there and supporting and defending the constitution.
Rant over!
I'll come right out and say, its not a two way street. I'm sure there was an attack ad or two against shrub. I can't say any of them were memerable. Al Gore the serial liar, John Kerry the fake hero. Both slimes were memorable. I don't remember shrub having to fend off anything similar.
We also have such as Mr. Lultwak, of the NYTs. Who is here to warn us of the danger Obama faces as a lapsed Muslem. The problems his security would face as the islamic population tries to legitimately to off him by stoning,hanging, or go traditional and chop his head off with a sword.
I'm sure this keeps Mr. Lultwak up awake at nights. I'm he'll be given free access to bring further important worries that he will share with us. Perhaps his tortured soul gets some ease from this. I hope so.
!oP
Ewe,
You have a short memory. I recall this website and liberals in the Main Stream Media all continuously harping on Bush's military record while serving in the Texas Air National Guard. The accusations of dodging the draft, preferential treatment, being awol, on drugs, etc. were all being played up by Rather and others. Some dirty tricksters even scammed Rather and CBS with fake documents in an attempt at an October surprise. Karl Rove was blamed for everything from the SBVT to Abu Grahib. Bush was blamed for Enron and Cheney for his brief tenure at Halliburton.
In addition there were huge outcries and criticism against the Bush and the government because of 9/11, Bush's reaction in that classroom, his evasive maneuvers on Air Force One, etc. Conspiracy theories galore were bandied about. They still pop up here and there.
There were lots more, but that is just off the top of my head. :-) Maybe someone else think of a few more.
The accusations of dodging the draft, preferential treatment, being awol, on drugs, etc. were all being played up by Rather and others.
Those accusations were true, AA... The document that Rather ultimately used was fabricated (not by Rather as Limbaugh and other right wingers have suggested) but the gist of his report was otherwise corroborated by several people. Bush was a spoiled, arrogant young man of privilege who took advantage of his father's connections, stayed drunk and high, and shirked his responsibilities.
I hate to quote Chris Matthews, of all people, but Mtthews is correct when he says the Democrats don't have the stomach for the kind of lying character assassination that the Republicans engage in.
Yeah, I was going down AA's Hannity-style list, and kept waiting for the smears that weren't true to come up.
OK, not really, it's AA, so I would have been shocked if something valid made the list.
& Cheney's "brief tenure at Halliburton" is a prize-winning pile o' poo even by Fox Nooz and ANutterAmerican standards. 5 years, 40+ million bucks(not to mention his ongoing compensation) working for a war contractor immediately before being put into the VP seat. How much of a Republo-Zombie do you have to be to think that smells OK?
Give AA credit. His post was a well summarized, factually accurate history of the Bush administration.
The documents, although fake, supported the facts as told by the secretary who had originally typed up the reports.
GW wasn't a draft dodger, but he did use the TANG to avoid being sent to Vietnam. His records show he had checked the box requesting that he not be sent overseas.
No one joined the NG, Army Reserves or any of the other reserve forces with any expectation of being sent to Vietnam. NO ONE.
Enlisting in the reserves was an honorable thing to do back then, regardless of the motives of the person enlisting. But for someone to be put into the reserves and for that person to shirk his duties, or to take time off to participate in a political campaign, is disgraceful.
As noted, those were not smears. I think Rather got punked.
Those storys came up, and quickly died. Reinforceing shrubs apparent cluelessness on 9/11 wouldn't have done any good thing. Questioning our leadership at that point was not something anyone could stomach. After things calmned down, investigations were obstructed. One image that pops out was of shrub only giving testimoney with Chenney holding his hand. There is deffinetly some disagreement with the performance of this administration by a good sized majority of the population. I can't remember the last time some pundit made anything of this. Shrub's response would/has be/been. Well sir their all wrong. And we're gonna keep with the plan and they'll come arround. And then they'll be sorry.
I'm worried somehow this group can still do extreme damage to us, our country, and the world.
You have a short memory. I recall this website and liberals in the Main Stream Media all continuously harping on Bush's military record while serving in the Texas Air National Guard. The accusations of dodging the draft, preferential treatment, being awol, on drugs, etc. were all being played up by Rather and others. Some dirty tricksters even scammed Rather and CBS with fake documents in an attempt at an October surprise. Karl Rove was blamed for everything from the SBVT to Abu Grahib. Bush was blamed for Enron and Cheney for his brief tenure at Halliburton.
In addition there were huge outcries and criticism against the Bush and the government because of 9/11, Bush's reaction in that classroom, his evasive maneuvers on Air Force One, etc. Conspiracy theories galore were bandied about. They still pop up here and there.
There were lots more, but that is just off the top of my head. :-) Maybe someone else think of a few more.
Well, could it be that they were talking about his military record mostly because he was hardly ever there when he was supposed to be there, in other words, he was AWOL from his duty. He had his flight status stripped of him because he wouldn't take his required physical, and was later bounced from the Air National Guard because he had "fufilled" his requirement, and they really didn't need him any longer. He did dodge the draft by joining the Air National Guard, and as others have mentioned, checked the box to NOT go overseas to Vietnam. There were plenty of others who did it too. Bush had an admitted coke problem (I'm not talking about the soda), and was drunk for most of his life up until he was probably after 40 years old. I mean, he got busted for DUI in Maine in the 1970's. Do you realize how HARD that was? I am from Maine, my Dad used to tell me stories about him and my mom going out with friends, getting pickled, driving home, getting stopped by the cops, and the local police asking him if he had been drinking, and the answer was yes, and they would tell him to slow down a little and make it home safe. Do you realize how drunk you would have had to be to get cited for DUI in Maine in the 1970's? The answer is falling down passing out slobbering drunk.
Bush DID get preferrential treatment to get into the ANG, and also Yale and Harvard. Do you think he got in there on his grades? He got in there because his Dad was a former Yalie, and powerful person, as well as his grandfather. Same for his admission to Harvard. It happens. Remember the old saying of it's not what you know, but WHO you know? It rings true for W's higher education. Hey, if I were the son of a high level diplomat and former Skull and Bones member of Yale, I'd use every string I could pull to get into those schools as well, and make the most of it. W has obviously done that. That's called the old boy network, he's part of it, and got preferrential treatment because of that.
Cheney at Halliburton, he's still getting lots of money from them. They didn't make these things up. Enron, Bush was good friends with the guys who ran the company. Again, not a smear, not made up. Do you honestly think that old Kenny Boy didn't ask Bush for some favors when he was Gov of Texas and POTUS? You're crazy if you think he didn't.
Karl Rove was never blamed for Abu Gharib, that should have been paid at W's feet. Why? He's the COmmander in Chief as he keeps telling us, it's ultimately his responsibility. Rove I'm sure didn't run SBVFT, but I'm certain he had something to do with it, being that one of the guys running that group had ties back to Rove for a long time.
See, the things that you listed aren't smears, they are actually what, you know, happened.
Republicans are just trying to unify their base: IDIOTS
Andrea Tantaros
This entire harangue about the National Journal's estimations of Obama's liberality is proof positive of the complete lack of any competenmt mentation on the part of its author. While he is so carefully documenting, mostly with links to other stupid articles on MMFA, how wrong National Jourmnal is and how poor their methods are, he completely ignores the fact that National Journal is not the only political punditry that thinks Obama is an extreme liberal. These other organizations think he is a liberal as well:
"In 2006, he won a 95 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal rating group, and a 93 percent rating from the AFL-CIO. In 2005, both groups gave him ratings of 100 percent. In contrast, the American Conservative Union ranked him at 8 percent, the same figure awarded to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), two unapologetic liberals"
Americans for Democratic Action is about as liberal an organization as exists in the United States. MMFA has once more proven itself a collection of intellectual stumblebums.
Funny how that happens.
Most Liberal Award...
Do they give the winner a championship belt... or a trophy or something? ;>)
Do they give the winner a championship belt... or a trophy or something? ;>)
Maybe a pair of Birkenstocks, or a year's supply of Ben & Jerry's... :-)
Gosh, imagine that. Someone voting along the lines of the party that they belong to. I would expect most republicans to be rated as highly conservative as well (which they are). As well as most other democrats to be rated as liberal, which they are. Sure, there are some folks who don't vote strictly down party lines, but most of the time, they join their party in their votes. So it's not really surprising the McCain votes very much like a hard core conservative, and it's not really surprising that Obama votes very much like a liberal. Is it extreme? I'd say not really. What is surprising is that people are shocked, shocked I say that a democratic senator from a liberal city tends to be, GASP! LIBERAL!!!
I can see it now, the entire country is going to turn gay overnight, men will be kissing men on street corners, women will be having abortions in front of children, and so on and so forth, except for the fact that most of the country typically agrees with a liberal agenda, and agrees with what a lot of liberals want to do, and where they want to take the country. It's just that they have been fed this line of BS that somehow liberals are evil and out to teach your children how to fornicate in the classroom, and that they want to take your guns and Bibles away. It's sad really...
He prefers to share his views about Americans in San Francisco. I mean, this guy -- and there's no proof, Bill, that he's a uniter in the Senate. He's the most -- one of the most partisan senators. So really, I don't see how it's Republicans' fault.
I love this passage right here. Why? They act like San Francisco isn't, you know, part of this country, and that addressing folks in SF isn't like addressing people in other parts of the country, even though demographics in SF tend to represent most of the target areas as the rest of the country and all.
And these guys tend to say things like, he's the most partisan Senator, mostly because he doesn't go along with everything that the republicans want to do, which is the measure by which republicans measure everything. You don't agree with us and the President, then you must be some extreme whacko liberal, or something of that nature.
Article 6 of our Constitution states that office holders must bind themselves, by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution, but no religious test is required to hold any office in the land.
The Constitution is silent about having to wear a flag pin, and fails to stipulate which hand is to be placed over the heart when hearing the national anthem. Actually, there is no requirement to place one's hand over one's heart when hearing the national anthem.
There isn't any place in the Constitution that says we must display tokens of "right-thinkingness" favored by the opposition party in order to hold office.
This is a non-issue. I'm puzzled. How did we get to this Orwellian place?