Fox News' Cameron uncritically reported on McCain ad without noting DNC had denied allegations
SUMMARY: On Fox News, Carl Cameron reported that a McCain campaign ad "will attack the Obama campaign for having sent what it will call a small army of lawyers into Alaska to smear Sarah Palin." But Cameron gave no indication that he had sought any comment from the Obama campaign nor did he note that the DNC has reportedly said the assertion is false and that neither the DNC nor the Obama campaign has sent anyone to Alaska to do research.
During the September 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron reported that an ad from Sen. John McCain's campaign "will attack the Obama campaign for having sent what it will call a small army of lawyers into Alaska to smear [Gov.] Sarah Palin." But Cameron gave no indication that he had sought any comment from the Obama campaign nor did he note that the Democratic National Committee reportedly denied the assertion when it was made in a September 9 OpinionJournal.com column cited by the ad.
In his September 9 column cited by the McCain ad, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund claimed, "Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29." But in a blog post that same day, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported that DNC research chief Mike Gehrke called Fund's claim a "flat-out absolute fabrication. We have sent absolutely zero people."
Ambinder also reported:
Mike Gehrke, the DNC's research chief, e-mails to say that Democratic staffers have not traveled en masse to Alaska to join the Sarah Palin hunt.
"Not a single person from DC or Chicago has traveled to Alaska to do research," he writes. Not a single Obama staffer, not a DNC staffer, not a hired gun, he says.
Local Democratic operatives are helping out, and Obama has a field office open, he said, but John Fund's report of an "army" of 30 officials being airlifted to Alaska are false.
From the September 10 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
CAMERON: The second ad, which is expected literally any time in the next couple of hours, is one that will attack the Obama campaign for having sent what it will call a small army of lawyers into Alaska to smear Sarah Palin, to dig up dirt and to push stuff up in order to politically discredit her.
Barack Obama said just a week and a half ago that he thought that Palin's family should be off-limits, and he wouldn't countenance a smear, and anybody engaged in it would be fired. Over the course of his campaign in 2007, Obama said he wouldn't take part in what's called opposition research, the pawing through, not of what was often referred to as votes and quotes, but going into the public record to find out stuff about her personal life. And that's what they will assert in an upcoming ad is exactly what Obama is doing. Very, very tough stuff, not so much on the key issues of the day, as it is on the key components of personality and character, because there are so many people who vote on whether or not they can trust and believe in the man, as opposed to what they say about issues.
they simply don't want her to answer anything and are attempting to portray any legitimate questions as a smear.
If she speaks using her own words, it's over for McCain. So much for women's equality, so much for "most qualified candidate."
I'll say it over and over: She makes Dan Quayle and Barrack Obama look like Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt.
Saying it over and over (also called wishful thinking) doesn’t make it true.
When she debates Joe Biden we will see.
Joe Biden will do pretty well, but he will look like the stuffy old bureaucrat that he is.. The country will fall even more in love with Gov Palin when they see how fresh and sharp she is.
Gov Palin is not only going to outshine Joe Biden, but she’s already starting to outshine Obama on eloquence and savvy.
Savvy Gov Palin > bumbling Obama
Listen up pinhead. We are not electing an American Idol here. Palin, no matter how charming and folksy she behaves, has NO IDEAS. She is exactly the same conservative/Republican cardboard cutout that Bush was. How did that work out for us again?
Sarah Palin's short record indicates that she is in favor of expanding government spending, increasing deficit spending, hiring cronies, abusing her powers and privileges as a government official and buying off her constituents with tax gimmicks. Her speeches since entering the campaign show that she is a shameless liar and in complete denial of recorded facts and history.
But she can smile and crack wise and has those oh-so-trendy glasses, so that should come in handy as the bills for the last administration come due, the American infrastructure continues to erode and the economy keeps on chugging down.
Unfounded; and untrue by the way.
Look at her accomplishments as Mayor and Governor.
She’s done far more than Obama; it’s a simple truth.
And if you’re in fact correct and she’s some sort of cardboard cutout without any ideas, then that would make Obama and empty suit with, well, nothing.
How did that work out for us again?
The last 8 years haven’t been great; bush taxed and spent way too much of our hard earned money. But on the other hand, we’ve not been attacked again either (not for lack of the terrorists trying.) And as much as you’d like to blame the current economic crisis on him, it had little to do with him. However, you’re probably one of those folks that think 9/11 was orchestrated by President Bush, so there’s not really any more we can talk about on that point.
Sarah Palin's short record indicates
At least Gov Palin *has* a record, unlike your presidential candidate that has only skeletons in his closet and nothing even close to the executive savvy Gov Palin has.
Her speeches since entering the campaign show that she is a shameless liar and in complete denial of recorded facts and history.
And you liberals are so quick to say ‘liar’ aren’t you?
In so many each posts here on MMFA, you guys are calling someone a liar. That is truly shameless madam, and you would do well to know the issues and the person before you dish out such a strong assault on her character.
But she can smile and crack wise and has those oh-so-trendy glasses,
Indeed, and Obama is starting to look all frayed around the edges and bumble and word-slip in darn near every speech he gives.
Be sharp and critical of me, but the polls reflect what I’m saying.. Obama is slipping, and slipping because Gov. Sarah Palin has him outdone.
You know no such thing. It doesn’t even make sense (unless you have Bush Derangement Syndrome.)
nor did he do anything but sit and read a book when we were attacked. what, me worry?
If you believe that then you are lacking basic common sense and understanding.
If you don't think those things are true, that Bush ignored warnings and was slow to react, and then when he did react he made terrible decisions, then, again, we see that you need a new "thinker".
Get a brain. Then use it.
You know no such thing. It doesn’t even make sense (unless you have Bush Derangement Syndrome.)
Max , I do not like defending mefirst, but come on. Especially on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary you are trying to rewrite history. Bush was given warnings, so was Condi. They ignored Dick Clarke, and Bush spent the summer of 2001 at his stupid ranch cutting down brush. Bush has the most blame on his hands for 9/11. He did nothing in the summer of 2001. Why are you trying to rewrite history?
i don't need you to defend me. and do you still feel that most posters on this site wanted jose padilla free to perform a terrorist attack?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708170011?f=s_search
It is nice of you to try and derail the thread, I will not bite though. I am not playing your game.
Everyone knows I was being sarcastic . Obviously you must have some reason to not want to discuss the altering of history of what Max is trying to do. But to each his or her own.
Look, your credibility (not that you had much to begin with) just went over the Bridge to no where with Sarah Palin.
Get a life and talk about issues and stop trying to derail threads.
If you believe that then you are lacking basic common sense and understanding.
For seven minutes in the classroom after he was informed that "America [was] under attack, George Bush did nothing but read My Pet Goat to a room full of second graders.
Seven minutes. Long enough to mobilize fighter planes. Long enough to ask if any other commercial planes had changed course after takeoff.
Common sense and understanding were two qualities that George Bush sorely lacked that day, and the fact that the first thing he did after leaving the classroom after seven minutes of doing nothing was have himself and his soiled undies flown to Nebraska underscores that point succinctly.
Gov Palin is not only going to outshine Joe Biden, but she’s already starting to outshine Obama on eloquence and savvy
Max will she talk to anyone other than Charlie Gibson?
J, you are making another ridiculous and partisan statement again.
First Charlie Gibson is a long time respected main stream media person who has moderated Presidential Debates and is well respected.
The partisans love to demonize him, and ABC even though ABC is one of the most fair of the networks.
Who else should Sarah Palin talk to ? Chris Matthews? Keith Olbermann? O'Reilly? NBC? Which is in the tank for Obama. Please tell me who the F she should talk to. I would like to know, we all would.
Bob
Charlie Gibsons conduct in April at the debate in Philadelphia was disgraceful. Pure and simple. There is a great article in the Huffington Post about this. Bob your one of the bottom people on my list now, you enaged in personal attacks yesterday calling me the "village idiot", As far as I am concerned your objective on this site is to derail threads and smear people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/ready-for-palin-revisitin_b_125346.html
"Adriana Huffington is a hatemonger , and many people post hateful things on that site. Also you are the 'village idiot'. - BobtheP
A little irony impaired there, aren't you, Bob?
Saying it over and over (also called wishful thinking) doesn’t make it true.
*snort* [try not to laugh] *snort* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Tell that to YOUR PARTY pal! They are the pnes who think the can turn lies into facts and opinions into facts. They are the ones who keep repeating the falsehoods.
Well, here is MY OPINION, which I formed based on FACTS: SARAH PALIN IS AN INDIOC RELIGIOUS NUTCASE AND JOHN MCCAIN IS A HYPOCRITICAL SELLOUT WITHOUT A SINGLE ORIGINAL (OR EVEN GOOD) IDEA WHO IS WELL PAST HIS PRESDIENTIAL PRIME.
And compared to Gov. Palin, Sen Qualye was closer to Dwight Eisenhower. Obama has better ideas and a more right minded philosophy to lead this country than eitehr of them, and anyone ELSE in your party.
That's not a fact, it's just my opinion. But unlike yours, it is BASED ON and SUPPORTED by facts.
First it was the Republicans crying about what they can't talk about over Obama, now it's the Democrats crying about what they can't talk about over Palin...
Where does the hypocrisy end?
NICEGUYEDIE: Applause.........
Thank you for mentioning that. The restrictions to access to Palin are a concern to me as well. Why can't we have other media organizations asking her questions and vetting the potential candidate.
To whoever said that Gibson is a well respected reporter - I would agree. However, he is one reporter, and in the interview let some McCaine campaign "stump fact" pass as "actual facts". I am sorry but this is not impressive to me ~ and remember that even well respected reporters make mistakes. Need I mention recent election history....and question's over Bush's service records.
We need more access to Palin as a VP pick so that she can be fully vetted by the American people, and not just Charlie Gibson.
They want to coach her how to say, "I'm on a mission from God," without actually saying, "I'm on a mission from God."
DAWUSS you are dead wrong here. The point of this is that the McCain camp has put out a FALSE ad which this muppet hasn't even checked with the Omaba camp to see if it is accurate!! How hard is it for him to pick up a phone and ask them if it is true?
You've made some progress in the last few weeks to show you actually have a working brain son, but right now it looks like you are backsliding.
DAWUSS you are dead wrong here. The point of this is that the McCain camp has put out a FALSE ad which this muppet hasn't even checked with the Omaba camp to see if it is accurate!! How hard is it for him to pick up a phone and ask them if it is true?
... and it happens on both sides of the spectrum. Both liberals and conservatives make statements and imply claims that are baseless, unverified, biased, agenda-oriented, nonsensical, and misleading.
Also, how do we know that McCain didn't try to contact the Obama campaign to verify such statements? (Also, I wonder how that went, "Yes, I'm with the McCain campaign and we plan on running an attack ad on Obama, and we're trying to make sure that this blurb is factually correct...")
And to be fair, how many times has Obama made nonfactual statements about McCain, and how many times did he contact the McCain campaign to make sure the attack ads he ran were factually correct?
"... and it happens on both sides of the spectrum. Both liberals and conservatives make statements and imply claims that are baseless, unverified, biased, agenda-oriented, nonsensical, and misleading."
and if they are misreported by the MEDIA in a way that ADVANCES the CONSERVATIVE agenda...it will show up here.
"Also, how do we know that McCain didn't try to contact the Obama campaign to verify such statements?"
Who cares what McCain did or didn't do? The concern here is that the MEDIA didn't every TRY to verify the statements before reporting them. This is a MEDIA watchdog site, not a McCain watchdog site.
"And to be fair, how many times has Obama made nonfactual statements about McCain, and how many times did he contact the McCain campaign to make sure the attack ads he ran were factually correct"
IF he did, and IF it was reported by the MEDIA in such a way as to ADVANCE the CONSERVATIVE agenda it will show up here. Once again, this is a MEDIA watchdog site...not an Obama watchdog site.
DAWUSS, this is about Carl Cameron.
HE is the one who is on the news reporting this. HE is the one who is supposed to be a journalist. HE is the one who should have done the checking to see if this story is true. If it is not then he would be there to say that the story is false.
If the Obama camp had, as you say, made a statement as false as McCain's don't you think that Cameron and his other drones on faux would not have been screaming it from the rooftops? Wouldn't your man jeff be making sure that his minions know all about the supposed malfeasence for days on his radio show?
You say all campaigns lie but for god's sake, they are trying to say that Obama is teaching sex-ed to 5 year olds. This is not like saying he is wrong about tax and it will cost you more than he said, he is calling him a pervert.
My mistake, I thought you were referring to McCain. *shakes head* I must be out of it today...
Maybe there's hope for tomorrow, right?
And to be fair, how many times has Obama made nonfactual statements about McCain
Nothing comes to mind. I'm going to pull a Hannity and ask you for an example. Frankly I don't see it. He's occasionally given OPINIONS, but I don't thtink he's been wrong on the FACTS. Nor have I even SEEN an attack ad on McCain by Obama, much to my disappointment.
I have to correct you, just a little bit. Obama has had attack ads against McCain, but they haven't been personal in nature, such as McCain's, they've been about the issues, and how Obama differs from McCain on them. They are attack ads, but again, not against the man himself, against his issues and policy positions.
What is funny, is if you go here: http://www.factcheck.org/ and look at the latest and greatest, almost ALL of the corrections are about things coming from the McCain campaign. There are 2 things up there on the front page for Obama, but one is about how he stretched the facts, but didn't tell lies. One is actually Obama making McCain look BETTER than he really is. It's interesting to see the spin, and lies put out there by McCain and Co, and how few there are on there about Obama. Interesting indeed...
It doesn't come from both sides in the same volume at all.
What a dishonest punk you continue to be, The Wussie. Just like you were from the very first day you posted here, helping Science101 derail a thread - and I caught you at it and pointed it out immediately.
You are so outclassed here it's got to be terribly embarrassing if you have any shame. Oh yeah, that's right, you righties don't have any shame (and don't even try to claim you're not a rightie, you dishonest punk.)
Excellent, as he should.
Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. (But I understand because Gov Palin is going to cost Obama the election.)
But Cameron gave no indication that he had sought any comment from the Obama campaign
Why should he? He was reporting that an ad from Sen. John McCain's campaign "will attack the Obama campaign for having sent what it will call a small army of lawyers into Alaska to smear [Gov.] Sarah Palin."
McCain was going to run that ad, and Carl Cameron was telling us it was coming.
nor did he note that the Democratic National Committee reportedly denied the assertion when it was made in a September 9 OpinionJournal.com column cited by the ad.
Haha, good one.
Lets see if I can work for MMFA.. *clears throat*
“nor did Carl Cameron personally fly to Alaska to verify these fantastic stories. In addition, Carl Cameron cannot be trusted anyway because he is reportedly biased against democrats.”
There, how did I do?
Yeah, I know; “don’t quit your day job.” ;)
Max wrote:
>> Excellent, as he should.
Really? Maybe you should check out factcheck.org. McCain lied *again* about something. Do you think your candidate can even go a day without lying? That's not to mention that the whole story may be completely bogus--that nobody was sent at all. The story comes from John Fund (an infamous lier), and he has yet to provide proof.
Oh, and you might want to check the newest polls. Obama is winning th electoral college. I know, when you can't win an argument, start the whole "our candidate is going to win" playground trash talk.
I would not expect anything of substance to come from The Gibson interview. I still have not forgiven Gibson for his treatment of Senator Clinton in the April Debate in Philly. He is a jerk.
but the difference between obama and palin is that obama will talk to other reporters and go on other shows, including the sunday morning shows. palin won't because they're afraid of what she's going to say. the tough hockey mom runs from questions. i guess they think they can photo op her until the election.
i guess they think they can photo op her until the election.
If that is the intent of the McCain campaign it will not work, the American people will want to here her.
Do you know who REALLY is out to destroy Sarah Palin?
Sarah Palin.
She is very thin-skinned, demands total loyalty form those under her, is a stinking liar, and is more than willing to use her positions to "get" anyone who is on her s*** list.
I think in your republican addled mind
I am not a Republican , I am an Independent, but I guess to you anyone who thinks for themselves is a Republican. Partisanship is destroying our nation, open your eyes.
OK. So everything you've written in here as of late has been pro republican, anti democrat, and you repeat and bring in talking points from republicans, republican websites, conservative talk show hosts, and you want me to think you're an independent? Nice try. That's like calling Neal Boortz an actual liberterian.
Bob wrote:
>>Just because I have issues with how the media has treated Sarah Palin
When has the media treated Palin unfairly?
The unfair discussions regarding the Palin children.
Bob wrote:
>>The unfair discussions regarding the Palin children.
What unfair discussion? You are simply evading my question. Please provide full context, quotes, and links.
here is a link, but you should do your own research. Have you heard of google?
http://palinsexismwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/biden-some-coverage-of-palin-has-been.html
Bob wrote:
>>here is a link, but you should do your own research. Have you heard of google?
Oh brother. So you provide one quote by Biden that says *some* of the coverage has been out of bounds, and that is your example of the media savagery? Remember, you said "I have never seen a media that is so intent on destroying someone like they are to Sarah Palin." Please show me where the media has savaged Palin
Oh, and whenever anyone makes an statement he can't support, and then says to do your own google research, that is a clear indication that person is lying through their teeth.
Again, Bob: you made the statement. Now back it up.
You do not like my answer, so you play games. Nice. How many more articles do you want? I can go back and fill this thread with links, but that will be unfair to the topic. But play your games , your a partisan hack and you are unable to look at things fairly. You are no longer worth my time.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/09/01/bennett-live-cnn-rebukes-cnn-exploiting-palins-daughter-score-political
Bob wrote:
>>You do not like my answer, so you play games.
Playing games? What are you taking a page out of the McCain playbook, and accusing those what you are guilty of? Really, my question is simple. You wrote that the media is intent on destroying Palin. Your proof? Newsbusters links, a notorious rightwing website. And the only thing the website shows is that the media brought up questions about Palin's ability to raise five children while campaigning, and brought up her daughter's pregnancy, something relevent, since Palin is running as an Evangelical, and since she is for abstinence only education.
So again, Bob, where is your proof? You don't have it of course, so you feign outrage and say you won't debate me. But the point stands: where did the press treat Palin unfairly?
Dorris wrote:
>>Funnypants, I would encourage you and Bob to stop, you are close to taking this way off topic. Bob provided some links, live with it.
What the heck are you talking about? Apparently, Dorris, you can't follow a debate. You are one of those people who doesn't want conflict, and doesn't want to exercise her mind.
I challenged Bob to back up his outrageous assertions (which are a right wing talking point). He could not. So instead of realizing Bob was not telling the truth, you attack me? What saddens me is that you are one of these Americans who are so easily swayed by BS. So long as someone says something that sounds convincing, you allow it. That's too bad, because it allows politicians to lie through their teeth, and it stops serious debate. A serous debate doesn't stop when the other side gives an answer; it stops when the person gives an *adequate* answer.
And your telling me to live with it is just plain rude.
You still haven't proven anything with the one blog, which is, again, someone's opinion out there.
Who, in the media, have made bad comments or smears about Palin's family? Which, by the way, she is more than happy to prop up in front of her front and center for her own political gain. I agree, the kids (under 18) should be left alone. Her husband? Free game. Her 19 year old son? Free game as well. But there is nobody in the media attacking her children, or her family for that matter. That's just been a meme sent around and has been picked up, and is normally proceeded by things like what you said. "Some in the media are saying." things like that.
Nice site, Bob the indepePendent.
Righty's whining about the "leftist media intelligentsia" sexism. You're kidding right?
Bob wrote:
>>Partly it is a joke yes, because i am not google, if certain posters would do research on their own. I gave my humble opinion, some do not like to they attack with partisan hate.
Bob, you are lying again. No one is attacking you with partisan hate. That is your own clever way to try to deflect from your inability to defend your argument. (Again, just what McCain is doing right now.)
Here is where I discussed McCain lying yesterday
"She did not imply anything, the real question is why does MSNBC allow someone to continue to lie?"--bob
I guess you really want to throw McCain under the bus here. At first, I thought he was simply misled by Palin's implication, but since that is not the case it is much worse. McCain is willfully lying if what you say is true.
Either McCain is lying or Palin is (perhaps somewhat innocently) creating a false impression. If you say McCain is lying, then I won't argue with you.
You will not have disagreement with me on McCain lying , he lied , but Palin has not.
And a little hint, just because i have an open mind does not mean I am supporting McCain. I know the partisans on here have problems with people being objective.
Bob wrote:
>>but Palin has not.
Yes, Palin has lied. She said she told congress no to the bridge to nowhere. She never did. She was not in power to do so. But she actually championed the bridge when she ran for governor. When congress did not allocate enough money for it, she *lamented* that the bridge could not be built, and attacked those who were against the bridge.
She said she would cooperate with the investigation into her abusing power. Now she says she will not cooperate.
She said she is against earmarks. As governor, she secured more earmarks for her state than any other governor.
Oops, wrong Newsweek article.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158140
Here is the one I was talking about above. I'm sure you don't agree with it.
And I've never seen Obama receive a Newsweek treatment when conservative bloggers were forwarding lies and distortions about him. If they did something similar I missed it, and would be glad to have someone point it out to me. Such as, he's not a radical Muslim, doesn't have ties to terrorists, doesn't want Sharia law in place in the US, isn't part of a black separatist movement, and so on and so forth...
Bob wrote:
>>[link]
What a stupid response! The link you provided debunks *emails* about Palin. What you wrote is "I have never seen a media that is so intent on destroying someone like they are to Sarah Palin." Do you care to give any *media* accounts that have attacked Palin?
If you want to talk about hate, just go to feeper.com. You'll find plenty coming from the right wing.
Bob wrote:
>>I am not supporting the right wing, I think they are more haters than what Sarah Palin has been getting from the left. My point is there seems to be an intent from the media to destroy her, just like the media tried to do to Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.
And again, will you please answer a simple question and tell me how the media has tried to destroy Palin? It is really a simple question.
Bob wrote:
>>I have never seen a media that is so intent on destroying someone like they are to Sarah Palin,
No you didn't. Remember, you made a very strong statement: "I have never seen a media that is so intent on destroying someone like they are to Sarah Palin." Your proof is that they raised the possibility that she couldn't raise five kids and campaign at the same time? That is your definition of the press intent on destroying someone?
Bob wrote:
>>Yes that is part of it. Sorry your too blind to see and think for yourself.
Sorry, Bob, but I'm not fooled, and insults do not substitute for an argument. Please show me where the press has tried to ruin Palin?
Oh, you claim to not be a Republican, but you link to the notoriously rightwing, inaccurate website newsbusters, and your repeat rightwing talking points, so I find that hard to believe.
I would agree with you about Charlie Gibson.
My point is that she has been subjected to something that I believe she would not if she were a man, I would also submit that if she were a man her credentials would not have made her a VP Choice, the Gov of Alaska as a man would not be a first choice as a VP.
That said would a man be asked how he can be a good father and be the Vice Presdent with a Down Syndrome Baby?
Get real.
Bob wrote:
>>That said would a man be asked how he can be a good father and be the Vice Presdent with a Down Syndrome Baby?
But who in the media asked that question of Palin?
Hey Clancy!! You're back!!
Just a question. When you posted this from Daily Kos:
So, welcome to today's Republican Party, where facts are treated like an Rorschach inkblot test. Where the benign is viewed as perverse and the perverse is viewed as benign.
Through the prism of this inverted ethical philosophy, it's completely acceptable to laud a presidential candidate who thinks rape is just hilarious and to cheer on a vice-presidential candidate who was mayor of a town that charged victims for rape kits. It's a party where a congressman can state that naked prisoners stacked in a pyramid and tortured is nothing more than "hazing", where Senators on a D.C. madam's list still are welcomed into the GOP with open arms, and where Representatives soliciting 16 year old boys are allowed to resign rather than be kicked out of the party altogether. What turns the stomach of normal society is not merely tolerated here in the confines of Pervert Central, but it is fully accepted in this circus. Here, above all, the abnormal is normal in the caucus of freaks.
But oh, the indignation! When a Democrat tries to protect children from a world of Mark Foleys, he is painted as a sex-obsessed deviant. When a party seeks to preserve choice, it's portrayed as wanting a society of one-night stands. When rational science supports a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, the GOP sees a potion for whores.
Yes, folks, it is Democrats who are obsessed with sex and who are insisting on reaching into your bedrooms and your bodies. The Republicans? This Grand Old Party of pervert-protectors and sex monitors? This cadre of prudes who would rather have uninformed toddlers be molested, clueless teens knocked up, and uneducated Americans spreading STDs like fleas? Clearly, they are the honorable ones--the moral compass of our nation. They are nothing more than a parade of faux-Puritans marching back in time, waving banners of lies and singing smear chants along the way, twisting facts in the hot air that billows from their mouths, grinning stupidly from ear to ear, and reveling in their singular ability to beat the low drums of deceit without shame, day after day, until Election Day dawns.
I was curious. As none of it was untrue why would you as a part of the republican hivemind actually refer to it? Did you forget to take your pills or did you have what George Bush would call "a moment of clarity"? I'm sure you coul let us know. :-)
I have never seen a media that is so intent on destroying someone like they are to Sarah Palin, I am ashamed to be an American that we live in a society where hate seems to rule.
You consistently prove that you're a fool, Bobthep, and you're continuing in that tradition again today.
It's a false meme that Sarah Palin is being destroyed in a vendetta-like way. The image that McCain wants us to buy about Palin is a facade, a false front, and that facade is being destroyed. That's what the press is supposed to do - they're supposed to uncover the truth. And it offends you that they're uncovering the truth?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, you're Bobthep. Of course you're offended by people uncovering the truth when it comes to FoxNews, or MSNBC, or your other screen names and identities.
On the other hand, as an American I am offended that the Republican Party is still so corrupt and so influenced by Karl Rove political hackery that they'd pretend, as you do, that poor, poor Sarah Palin is being unfairly attacked.
Whiner. Dishonest punk.
Bottleblonde
You are the one to talk about multiple names. Your the one who has more user names than AOL.
Sorry to hear that you're ashamed to be an American, Bob. ;o)
See how that works?
This Cameron is really is a piss-ant isn't he?...
The state of journalism is this fast-approaching Banana Republic is very degraded.
Nice to see Obama kick some right-wing ass today, and some corporate media ass, too. Well done Barack.
When you're dealing with consevatives, you've got to get right in the swamp with them. These filthy punks are more than happy to continue with the destruction of America.