Media continue to uncritically report McCain campaign attacks on their coverage, but case studies still show disparate coverage in McCain's favor
SUMMARY: A Media Matters review of the media's coverage of two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. Barack Obama -- his ties to Bill Ayers and Antoin Rezko -- and two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. John McCain -- his reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors and his association with G. Gordon Liddy -- found that, while the five major newspapers frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko throughout the 2008 election cycle, they rarely mentioned McCain's reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors, and they almost completely ignored McCain's association with Liddy. In addition, the three evening network news broadcasts mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko several times, but never reported on McCain's reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors or his association with Liddy. This despite the fact that the media continued to uncritically report complaints by the McCain campaign that they favored his opponent in their coverage of the presidential race.
Throughout the 2008 general election campaign, the media uncritically reported complaints by Sen. John McCain's campaign that they favored his opponent in their coverage of the presidential race, while making little attempt to assess the accuracy of those complaints or to confirm or refute them. In September, Media Matters for America undertook a review of the media's coverage of two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. Barack Obama and two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on McCain and compared the extent of media attention to each. Media Matters has since updated that review through Election Day, November 4. Specifically, Media Matters compared the media's coverage of Obama's association with Chicago developer Antoin Rezko to the media's coverage of McCain's associations with donors for whom McCain reportedly facilitated land deals. Media Matters also compared coverage of Obama's association with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers to coverage of McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy, whom Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman has described as McCain's "own Bill Ayers."
Media Matters found that while the five major newspapers -- the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post -- frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko, they rarely mentioned McCain's reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors, and they almost completely ignored McCain's association with Liddy. In addition, the three evening network news broadcasts mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko several times, but never reported on McCain's reported facilitation of land deals that benefited donors or his association with Liddy. Indeed, since The New York Times first reported on April 22 that McCain facilitated land deals that benefited major donors, these media outlets mentioned such deals in only five additional reports and one editorial. By contrast, those media outlets mentioned Obama's ties to Rezko -- who was convicted in June in a case in which Obama was never accused of any wrongdoing -- in 76 network evening news broadcasts, news reports, editorial, or opinion pieces during that same time period. Moreover, while these same media outlets mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers 311 times in 2008 through Election Day, they produced only five reports mentioning McCain's connections to Liddy, whom McCain has praised and repeatedly associated with in public and in campaign settings.
Following Media Matters' September report -- which found that those media outlets had yet to cover McCain's relationship with Liddy -- there was some media attention on that association. However, the broadcast networks continued to ignore the association on their evening news programs, and, with the exception of a single Washington Post column by Richard Cohen, mentions in the five major papers were limited to six articles noting that CBS host David Letterman had asked McCain about his association with Liddy.
Media Matters has previously noted McCain's ties to Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to kill journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to kill Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.)
Media Matters previously conducted a review of articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times comparing coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. with coverage of televangelist James Hagee, a McCain supporter who has made numerous controversial comments. Media Matters found that, from February 27, the date Hagee endorsed McCain for president, to April 30, the two papers combined published more than 12 times as many articles mentioning Wright and Obama as they did mentioning Hagee and McCain. Media Matters also documented (here, here, here, here, and here) other examples of the disparity between the media's extensive coverage of controversial comments made by Wright and other supporters of Obama and their coverage of controversial comments by Hagee and other supporters of McCain.
McCain and land deals vs. Obama and Rezko
McCain has reportedly facilitated several land deals that benefited wealthy developers who were major McCain donors. But while several major newspapers published initial articles concerning those deals, the media have devoted far less attention to McCain's involvement in land deals than they have paid to Obama's ties to Rezko. According to a Media Matters search of the Nexis and Factiva databases, since The New York Times' initial April 22 article, the land deals were 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 were not mentioned on any evening network news program through Election Day. By contrast, during that same time period, 71 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports.
Specifically:
- The Los Angeles Times published one news article that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared with nine news articles mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- The New York Times published its original April 22 news article and one editorial that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared with 16 news articles and two opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- USA Today published one news article that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared with three news articles mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- The Wall Street Journal did not publish a news article, editorial, or opinion piece that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but published six news articles and nine editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- The Washington Post published three news articles that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared with 20 news articles and six editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- ABC's World News did not air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but aired three reports mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- The CBS Evening News did not air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but aired one report mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
- NBC's Nightly News did not air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but aired one report mentioning Obama's association with Rezko.
In its April 22 article, headlined "A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain," The New York Times examined McCain's relationship with Arizona developer Donald R. Diamond, reporting that McCain "sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks." The article described Diamond as "one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain's current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far."
In a May 9 article, headlined "McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer," The Washington Post reported that McCain "championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers." The Post identified the "Arizona rancher" as SunCor Development president Steven A. Betts, and described him as "a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee."
In a May 19 article, USA Today reported that McCain also "inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in a provision sought by SunCor Development." The article further noted that "McCain's campaigns have received $224,000 since 1998 from donors connected to [SunCor Development parent company] Pinnacle West, including $104,100 for his current presidential run" and that Pinnacle West's CEO, vice president and lobbyist, and former president, in addition to Betts, are all McCain fundraisers.
In an October 27 article, headlined "McCain pushed regulators for land swap, despite pledge," McClatchy Newspapers reported that "[y]ears after he resurrected his political fortunes from the Keating Five savings and loan investigation, John McCain promoted an Arizona land swap that would've benefited a former mentor and partner of the scandal's central figure":
The owners of the Spur Cross Ranch, a dramatic 2,154-acre tract of Sonoran desert just north of Phoenix, in the late 1990s sought to sell it to a developer who planned to build a premier golf course surrounded by 390 luxury homes.
Nearby residents and environmentalists, however, wanted to preserve the area's unusual cacti, stone formations and hundreds of Hopi Indian tribal artifacts.
After opposition surfaced, the developer sought McCain's help in forging a land swap with the U.S. Forest Service -- a deal that also would benefit the owners of the ranch, including a company controlled by billionaire Carl H. Lindner Jr., an associate of S&L chief Charles H. Keating.
McCain and an aide pushed for the exchange in more than a half dozen sometimes-testy letters and phone calls up and down the Forest Service's hierarchy, according to former agency officials and correspondence. McCain's office even circulated draft legislation that would have overridden the agency's objection to surrendering national forest land. Ultimately, the deal fell apart.
McCain's behind-the-scenes maneuvering on Spur Cross contrasts with his image as a congressional ethics champion and his pledge -- made after the Keating scandal in 1991 sullied his reputation -- never to intervene with regulators again.
McClatchy further reported that "the 89-year-old Lindner and his son, Carl H. Lindner III, have raised more than $300,000 for McCain's presidential campaign."
McCain and Liddy vs. Obama and Ayers
According to a Media Matters search of the Nexis and Factiva databases, between January 1 and Election Day, the five major newspapers, as well as the network evening news broadcasts, collectively broadcast or published 311 news reports, editorials, and opinion pieces mentioning Obama's relationship with Ayers. By contrast, over the same period, the five major newspapers produced six articles and one opinion piece mentioning McCain's association with Liddy; the evening news broadcasts did not mention that relationship at all. All six news articles were reports on McCain's appearance on the October 16 edition of CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, during which Letterman questioned McCain about his association with Liddy.
Specifically:
- The Los Angeles Times published two news articles that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, compared with 46 news articles and 13 editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- The New York Times published one news article that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, compared with 60 news articles and 16 editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- USA Today published one news article that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, compared with 11 news articles and seven editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- The Wall Street Journal did not publish a news article, editorial, or opinion piece that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, but published 14 news articles and 26 editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- The Washington Post published two news articles and one opinion piece that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, compared with 58 news articles and 35 editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- ABC's World News did not air a report that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, but aired nine reports mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- The CBS Evening News did not air a report that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, but aired eight reports mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
- NBC's Nightly News did not air a report that mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, but aired eight reports mentioning Obama's association with Ayers.
The Tribune's Chapman wrote in a May 4 column, "[B]ack in the 1970s, [Liddy] extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology." Writing that "Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated," Chapman went on to note that, in 1994, Liddy "gave some advice to his listeners" on how to shoot ATF officials. Chapman further wrote that "[f]ar from repudiating him [Liddy], McCain has embraced him." In an August 22 blog post about an Americans Issues Project ad about Obama's association with Ayers, Chapman wrote: "If Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy. How about they both get started?" Nevertheless, in a 2,140-word October 4 front-page article about Obama's association with Ayers, The New York Times quoted Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman's statement that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." In an October 7 blog post citing the Times article, Chapman wrote: "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." During his October 16 interview with Letterman, McCain said of Liddy: "You say I know Gordon Liddy. I -- he paid his debt. He went to prison. He paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy, and his son who is also a good friend and supporter of mine."
Rezko coverage
From April 22 to November 4, 76
combined network evening news broadcasts and news, editorials, or opinion
pieces covered or mentioned Obama's ties to Rezko:
Los
Angeles Times (9)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/9/08 |
N |
|
|
Prosecutors delay Rezko sentencing |
10/7/08 |
N |
|
McCain, Obama introduce newly sharp tone amid major news events |
10/7/08 |
N |
|
Barack Obama accuses Republicans of distracting voters from the economy |
10/6/08 |
N |
|
9/9/08 |
N |
|
|
8/28/08 |
N |
|
|
McCain out of touch if he's lost count of his homes, Obama says |
8/22/08 |
N |
|
Rezko closing arguments begin |
5/13/08 |
N |
|
5/6/08 |
N |
The New York Times (18)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/25/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/4/08 |
E |
|
|
9/24/08 |
N |
|
|
9/23/08 |
N |
|
|
9/23/08 |
N |
|
|
Obama Carries Uneven Record as Debater to First Contest With McCain |
9/22/08 |
N |
|
8/21/08 |
N |
|
|
8/19/08 |
N |
|
|
6/5/08 |
N |
|
|
5/12/08 |
N |
|
|
5/11/08 |
N |
|
|
5/8/08 |
N |
|
|
4/27/08 |
E |
|
|
4/23/08 |
N |
USA Today (3)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
8/24/08 |
N |
|
|
8/21/08 |
N |
The Wall Street Journal (15)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/3/08 |
E |
|
|
10/31/08 |
E |
|
|
10/23/08 |
E |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
9/30/08 |
E |
|
|
Obama Should Come Clean on Ayers, Rezko and the Iraqi Billionaire |
8/30/08 |
E |
|
8/22/08 |
N |
|
|
8/20/08 |
E |
|
|
6/11/08 |
E |
|
|
6/7/08 |
N |
|
|
6/5/08 |
N |
|
|
6/5/08 |
N |
|
|
5/28/08 |
E |
|
|
5/12/08 |
N |
|
|
5/9/08 |
N |
The Washington
Post (26)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/23/08 |
N |
|
|
10/19/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/12/08 |
E |
|
|
10/11/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
E |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/4/08 |
N |
|
|
10/3/08 |
E |
|
|
10/3/08 |
N |
|
|
9/23/08 |
N |
|
|
9/3/08 |
N |
|
|
8/27/08 |
N |
|
|
8/24/08 |
N |
|
|
8/23/08 |
E |
|
|
8/22/08 |
N |
|
|
8/22/08 |
N |
|
|
8/13/08 |
N |
|
|
7/14/08 |
N |
|
|
7/2/08 |
N |
|
|
6/5/08 |
N |
|
|
6/4/08 |
N |
|
|
5/23/08 |
N |
|
|
5/6/08 |
N |
|
|
4/25/08 |
E |
ABC evening news broadcasts (3)
|
Show |
Date |
|
World News Sunday |
8/24/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
8/21/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
6/4/08 |
CBS evening news broadcast (1)
|
Show |
Date |
|
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric |
6/4/08 |
NBC evening news broadcast (1)
|
Show |
Date |
|
Nightly News with Brian Williams |
6/4/08 |
Land deals coverage
From April 22 to November 4, seven news, editorials, or opinion pieces mentioned that McCain reportedly facilitated land deals that benefited wealthy developers who were major McCain donors:
Los Angeles Times (1)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
5/9/08 |
N |
The New York Times (2)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
4/25/08 |
E |
|
|
4/22/08 |
N |
USA Today (1)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
5/15/08 |
N |
The Wall Street Journal: No coverage.
The Washington
Post (3)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
6/26/08 |
N |
|
|
5/20/08 |
N |
|
|
5/9/08 |
N |
ABC evening news broadcast: No coverage.
NBC evening news broadcast: No coverage.
CBS evening news broadcast: No coverage
Ayers coverage
From January 1 to November 4, 311
combined network evening news broadcasts and news, editorials, or opinion
pieces mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers:
Los
Angeles Times (59)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/4/08 |
E |
|
|
10/30/08 |
N |
|
|
10/28/08 |
N |
|
|
10/26/08 |
E |
|
|
10/25/08 |
E |
|
|
10/23/08 |
E |
|
|
Swing voters are bothered by McCain's temperament and his party |
10/21/08 |
N |
|
10/21/08 |
N |
|
|
10/21/08 |
N |
|
|
Barack Obama has advantages of big bucks, a big name: Colin Powell |
10/20/08 |
N |
|
Palin doesn't doubt Obama loves America -- but Michele Bachmann does |
10/19/08 |
N |
|
10/19/08 |
E |
|
|
Obama, McCain solidify campaign themes in fights for crucial states |
10/18/08 |
N |
|
10/18/08 |
N |
|
|
10/17/08 |
N |
|
|
10/17/08 |
N |
|
|
10/17/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/13/08 |
N |
|
|
10/13/08 |
E |
|
|
10/12/08 |
N |
|
|
10/12/08 |
N |
|
|
10/11/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
E |
|
|
10/9/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
E |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
McCain, Obama introduce newly sharp tone amid major news events |
10/7/08 |
N |
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
Barack Obama accuses Republicans of distracting voters from the economy |
10/6/08 |
N |
|
Sarah Palin claims Barack Obama would "pal around with terrorists" |
10/5/08 |
N |
|
9/15/08 |
N |
|
|
8/30/08 |
N |
|
|
8/28/08 |
N |
|
|
Biden's jokes about his wife Jill? OK with Pelosi |
8/24/08 |
N |
|
8/23/08 |
N |
|
|
8/22/08 |
N |
|
|
6/1/08 |
E |
|
|
5/19/08 |
N |
|
|
5/15/08 |
E |
|
|
GOP makes a target of Obama |
4/25/08 |
N |
|
4/24/08 |
N |
|
|
4/22/08 |
N |
|
|
4/21/08 |
N |
|
|
Moderators' 'gotcha' tone inspires angry new debate |
4/18/08 |
N |
|
4/18/08 |
N |
|
|
4/18/08 |
E |
|
|
Debate dwells on Obama's past |
4/17/08 |
N |
The New York Times (76)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/2/08 |
E |
|
|
10/31/08 |
N |
|
|
10/31/08 |
N |
|
|
10/30/08 |
N |
|
|
10/27/08 |
N |
|
|
10/27/08 |
E |
|
|
10/27/08 |
N |
|
|
10/26/08 |
N |
|
|
10/26/08 |
N |
|
|
In Westchester, Economy is No. 1 Concern, but Agreement Stops There |
10/24/08 |
N |
|
10/24/08 |
N |
|
|
10/23/08 |
N |
|
|
10/23/08 |
N |
|
|
10/23/08 |
N |
|
|
A Onetime McCain Insider Is Now Offering Advice (Unwanted) From the Outside |
10/22/08 |
N |
|
10/22/08 |
E |
|
|
10/19/08 |
N |
|
|
Republicans Rain Negative Automated Calls on Voters in Swing States |
10/17/08 |
N |
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
E |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/13/08 |
N |
|
|
Tempering Attacks, McCain Says He's a Leader for Troubled Times |
10/13/08 |
N |
|
10/13/08 |
N |
|
|
10/12/08 |
N |
|
|
10/12/08 |
N |
|
|
McCain Campaign Sustains the Focus on Obama's Links to a 1960s Radical |
10/12/08 |
N |
|
10/11/08 |
E |
|
|
10/11/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
E |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/9/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
E |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
Obama's Personal Ties Are Subject of Program on Fox News Channel |
10/6/08 |
N |
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/5/08 |
N |
|
|
10/5/08 |
E |
|
|
10/4/08 |
N |
|
|
10/3/08 |
N |
|
|
9/23/08 |
N |
|
|
Obama Carries Uneven Record as Debater to First Contest With McCain |
9/22/08 |
N |
|
9/15/08 |
N |
|
|
On the Web, a Nonpartisan Look at Those Partisan Campaign Ads |
9/11/08 |
N |
|
Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan |
9/9/08 |
N |
|
9/5/08 |
N |
|
|
8/27/08 |
N |
|
|
8/22/08 |
N |
|
|
8/21/08 |
N |
|
|
7/6/08 |
N |
|
|
5/11/08 |
N |
|
|
5/8/08 |
N |
|
|
5/3/08 |
E |
|
|
4/28/08 |
N |
|
|
4/27/08 |
E |
|
|
4/20/08 |
E |
|
|
4/19/08 |
N |
|
|
4/17/08 |
N |
|
|
Former Friends Weigh Into Debate, and the Former Amity Drains Out |
4/17/08 |
N |
|
4/17/08 |
N |
|
|
4/17/08 |
E |
USA Today (18)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/23/08 |
N |
|
|
10/23/08 |
E |
|
|
10/17/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/13/08 |
N |
|
|
10/13/08 |
E |
|
|
10/9/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
8/26/08 |
N |
|
|
4/30/08 |
E |
The Wall Street Journal (40)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/3/08 |
E |
|
|
11/3/08 |
E |
|
|
11/3/08 |
N |
|
|
11/3/08 |
E |
|
|
11/1/08 |
E |
|
|
10/31/08 |
E |
|
|
10/30/08 |
N |
|
|
10/27/08 |
E |
|
|
10/24/08 |
E |
|
|
10/23/08 |
E |
|
|
10/22/08 |
N |
|
|
10/17/08 |
E |
|
|
10/17/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/15/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
|
|
10/13/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/9/08 |
E |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
9/30/08 |
E |
|
|
9/23/08 |
E |
|
|
9/19/08 |
E |
|
|
Obama Should Come Clean on Ayers, Rezko and the Iraqi Billionaire |
8/30/08 |
E |
|
Legal Controversy Erupts Over TV Ads Linking Obama to '60s Radical |
8/29/08 |
N |
|
6/12/08 |
E |
|
|
5/29/08 |
E |
|
|
5/9/08 |
E |
|
|
5/2/08 |
E |
|
|
Democratic Fight Has Its Upsides |
4/23/08 |
E |
|
Woods Fund Could Become Obama's 'Swift Boat' |
4/18/08 |
N |
|
4/17/08 |
N |
The Washington
Post (93)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/3/08 |
N |
|
|
11/3/08 |
E |
|
|
11/3/08 |
N |
|
|
11/2/08 |
N |
|
|
10/31/08 |
N |
|
|
In Washington, Halloween Costumes Unmask Our Inner Political Goblins |
10/31/08 |
N |
|
10/31/08 |
E |
|
|
10/30/08 |
N |
|
|
10/29/08 |
E |
|
|
10/28/08 |
N |
|
|
10/27/08 |
N |
|
|
10/27/08 |
N |
|
|
10/26/08 |
N |
|
|
10/24/08 |
E |
|
|
10/24/08 |
E |
|
|
10/22/08 |
N |
|
|
10/22/08 |
E |
|
|
10/22/08 |
N |
|
|
10/21/08 |
N |
|
|
10/21/08 |
E |
|
|
10/21/08 |
E |
|
|
10/20/08 |
N |
|
|
10/20/08 |
N |
|
|
10/19/08 |
N |
|
|
10/18/08 |
N |
|
|
10/18/08 |
E |
|
|
10/17/08 |
E |
|
|
10/17/08 |
E |
|
|
10/17/08 |
E |
|
|
10/17/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
E |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/16/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
E |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
E |
|
|
10/15/08 |
N |
|
|
10/15/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
|
|
10/14/08 |
N |
|
|
10/13/08 |
N |
|
|
10/12/08 |
E |
|
|
10/12/08 |
N |
|
|
10/12/08 |
E |
|
|
10/11/08 |
N |
|
|
10/11/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
E |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/10/08 |
N |
|
|
10/9/08 |
N |
|
|
10/9/08 |
E |
|
|
10/9/08 |
E |
|
|
10/8/08 |
E |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/8/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
10/7/08 |
E |
|
|
10/7/08 |
N |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/6/08 |
E |
|
|
10/6/08 |
N |
|
|
10/5/08 |
N |
|
|
10/3/08 |
E |
|
|
10/3/08 |
N |
|
|
9/14/08 |
N |
|
|
9/3/08 |
N |
|
|
8/29/08 |
E |
|
|
8/27/08 |
N |
|
|
8/27/08 |
N |
|
|
6/5/08 |
N |
|
|
5/23/08 |
N |
|
|
5/20/08 |
N |
|
|
5/19/08 |
N |
|
|
5/18/08 |
E |
|
|
5/11/08 |
E |
|
|
5/9/08 |
E |
|
|
4/25/08 |
E |
|
|
McCain Questions Obama Remark Comparing '60s Radical, Lawmaker |
4/21/08 |
N |
|
4/18/08 |
N |
|
|
4/18/08 |
N |
|
|
4/18/08 |
N |
|
|
4/17/08 |
N |
|
|
3/3/08 |
N |
ABC evening news broadcast (9)
|
Show |
Date |
|
World News Sunday |
10/19/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
10/16/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
10/15/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
10/10/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
10/9/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
10/8/08 |
|
World News with Charles Gibson |
10/6/08 |
|
World News Sunday |
10/5/08 |
|
World News Sunday |
4/20/08 |
NBC evening news broadcast (8)
|
Show |
Date |
|
Nightly News |
10/23/08 |
|
Nightly News |
10/19/08 |
|
Nightly News |
10/17/08 |
|
Nightly News |
10/12/08 |
|
Nightly News |
10/9/08 |
|
Nightly News |
10/8/08 |
|
Nightly News |
10/5/08 |
|
Nightly News |
4/17/08 |
CBS evening news broadcast (8)
|
Show |
Date |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/22/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/20/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/16/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/15/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/10/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/9/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/7/08 |
|
CBS Evening News |
10/6/08 |
Liddy coverage
From January 1 to November 4, seven news, editorials or opinion pieces mentioned McCain's ties to Liddy, but six of those reports were on McCain's October 16 interview with Letterman. None of the network evening news broadcasts mentioned McCain's association with Liddy.
Los
Angeles Times (2)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/3/08 |
N |
|
|
10/17/08 |
N |
The New York Times (1)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/17/08 |
N |
USA Today (1)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
10/16/08 |
N |
The Washington
Post (3)
|
Headline |
Date |
News or Editorial/Op. |
|
11/3/08 |
N |
|
|
10/17/08 |
N |
|
|
10/14/08 |
E |
The Wall Street Journal: No coverage
ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news broadcasts: No coverage
Additionally, a February 8 Washington Post column by Dana Milbank and an August 13 New York Times article both mentioned Liddy and McCain but did not report or note any ties between the two.
NEXIS SEARCH TERMS: Media Matters searched the Nexis database for The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, and NBC using the following terms: Obama and Rezko; McCain and ((land swap) or (Don! pre/2 Diamond) or (Ste! pre/2 Betts) or (Suncor) or (Pinnacle West) or (Del Webb) or (Fort Ord) or (Yavapai) or (Fred! pre/2 ruskin) or (Great American Life Insurance) or (Carl pre/2 Lindner) or (Luke Air Force Base) or (spur cross ranch)); Obama and Ayers; McCain and Liddy.
FACTIVA SEARCH TERMS: Media Matters searched the Factiva database for The Wall Street Journal using the following terms: Obama and Rezko; McCain and ((land swap) or (Don* near2 Diamond) or (Ste* near2 Betts) or (Suncor) or (Pinnacle West) or (Del Webb) or (Fort Ord) or (Yavapai) or (Fred* near2 Ruskin) or (Great American Life Insurance) or (Carl near2 Lindner) or (Luke Air Force Base) or (spur cross ranch)); Obama and Ayers; McCain and Liddy.
People who claim the Press was "in the tank" for Obama conveniently forget the three-week "Reverend Wright-o-thon" that blanketed Cable TV during the primaries.
From the looks of things, the American Public was able to see how skewed the media coverage was in favor of Gramps McCain - and responded by electing Barack Obama in a LANDSLIDE.
Obama shoed what class and a wonderful leader he is and will be with this statement last night
"I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead."
Hopefully we can move on from partisan divide now including the media elite partisans who helped this divide since the Clinton era.
It was very telling to observe that the crowd responded to the above statement with applause, while McCain's crowd booed when he mentioned Obama.
It was very telling to observe that the crowd responded to the above statement with applause, while McCain's crowd booed when he mentioned Obama.
I noticed that, too. It looks like us liberals have more class than those conservatives in Arizona last night.
Let's be fair. It's much easier to be gracious when you know your candidate has won.
Let's be fair. It's much easier to be gracious when you know your candidate has won.
True. But I've seen many Republicans being even nastier that they were last night when they're on the winning side.
Now you know, republicans are sore losers. Perhaps next time around they'll remember one thing:
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize." – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
"What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon -- that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize." – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
And that was pretty much all we got in the final weeks of the Gramps McCain/Caribou Barbie campaign.
I was appalled at the boorish reaction of McCain's mob to the very mention of Obama's name. By contrast, the behavior of Obama's huge audience at his mention of McCain, was completely different: civilized and courteous. A glaring contrast, as I see it. This loutish and rude attitude was a hallmark of the GOP all throughout the campaign, especially after Sister Sarah got them worked up. The shameful and disgraceful actions and words of most of McCain's campaign made the victory of Obama that much sweeter.
Maddog, I just pulled this off of C&L, they found this comment on the fox news website blog about YOU DECIDE: Why did McCain lose?
My, reichpublikkkans really are sore losers...
Comment by sensi
November 5th, 2008 at 5:42 pmThis website encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, comments that include unlawful, threatening, libelous, or obscene content will not be allowed unless you are taking about that nagger Anti Christ president the liberals elected then by all means, have a ball. For this reason, please note that all comments are moderated and therefore may not appear immediately after submission. For more information, read our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.
Comment by Jimmy Mac
November 4th, 2008 at 11:57 pmIts simple, uneducated black people voting for Obama simply because he is black (only 1/2 really)….this is simply proven by this….75% of the military votes republican, 8/10 Blacks in the military voted Obama. I have also heard them interviewed on TV and radio and say “Because he’s a Brotha”
ALSO the VERY uneducated college age people of America (ESPECIALLY white females 18-24), they took NBC as the Word of God. This group didnt do their history homework….Jimmy Carter!
Because of the liberal media (NBC, CNN) people are told to blame all of their problems over the past 8 years on Bush and the Republicans, Americas LOVE to blame their problems on someone else.
*Palin helped the ticket more then she hurt it*
Comment by Scared of "Truth Sqaud"
November 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pmObama is fulfilling a part of God’s plan…making way for the anti-Christ. I am dumbfounded that he won. I expected it, but am still dumbfounded. I heard a lady say quite well the other day that although God is in control of every election, sometimes he lets “bad” people win to punish us. Be prepared to be punished, people. And hopefully you won’t get sick.
That's just a sample from that same fox news blog!
I saw that and added a coment on that blog, wonder if it survived?
Per Raw Story, there are already three Impeach Obama sites up. Their starting early but can they beat the number of Impeach Shrub sites? The bar is set at 95.
I hope someone passed that on to the Secret Service.
I noticed that too, Nerz. The real America seems to be stuck on negative. Hope they come around and join the grown-ups.
The 7 negative emotions as stated in Napoleon Hill's "think and grow rich"
anger, hate, greed, revenge, fear, superstition, jealousy. These are personified by all on faucks new. The repukelicans are controlled by most of these.
The 7 positive emotions: love, hope, faith, sex, romance, enthusiasm, desire. Progressives utilize these for the most part. Google Napoleon hill and read that book and give it to the children. Don't judge a book by its cover either.
Sex is an emotion? I'm getting the book, just as refernce the next time a woman accuses me of not being emotionally available.
Sex an emotion????? Shoot I'am with you Col. I'am already on my way to Borders, I keep telling my wife I'am a very emotional guy now I have proof.
DUH!!!!!!!!!!! You will love the book!! Read about the triumvate: sex, love and romance. I didn't make this up. The emotion of sex? Yes! We are sexual beings. Our primary purpose in the big picture is to procreate. Check the end of the book about the alibis people use to dilude themselves. Also the 57 major causes of failure. Napoleon hill lived with 504 of the wealthiest people in the world for 20 years to figure out why they were successful. You can thank me later. Just write thanx on a 100 dollar bill and mail it to me care of MMFA
Sex is an emotion? That brings a whole new meaning to when Smokey Robinson & The Miracles sang "I Second That Emotion". :-)
that was a sloppy song
That is promising, Casey. McCain's concession speech last night was nice too, but a little sad when contrasted with the McCain we sawm in the last few weeks of the campaign. I still think he's, deep down, a decent guy, he just fell in with a bad crowd, the desperate and increasingly out-of-touch Republican party.
I know it's overly simplistic to reduce things to the red state/blue state division, and to generalize about the populations of entire states or regions, but I have to admit, the electoral maps of the past two elections say a lot. I know there are great people and nasty people everywhere, but I look at the national map of red and blue states, and I think of places I've enjoyed visiting most. I think of the people I've met from different areas, which ones I really liked meeting, and which ones I could have lived without. It's uncanny.
McCain's decision to capitulate to Rovian negative campaigning was all his, and he paid for it. I agree that he seems to be a better man then his strategy revealed. But the decision to go that way must be lumped into the overall man.
Dead on.
A comparison of the two campaigns shows unity, efficiency, honor, and good judgement falls heavily in favor of Obama. The way they ran their campaigns is analogous to the way each would run his administration, and Obama has given a lot of us a plethora of reasons to be optimistic of the presidency in the future.
And Col., check your theory against the breakdown map of counties. I'd be real interested on the causes of "red" voters to be predominately displaced from higher population centers. Is it because the cities don't want the "nasty" folks living there? Or are they just inherently anti-social?
Primarily, red voters need the open spaces for their gun ranges, don't fit in too well in an urban environment. Could you see Sister Sarah in her helicopter chasing down a moose in downtown St. Paul (MN)
"Primarily, red voters need the open spaces for their gun ranges, don't fit in too well in an urban environment."
Yeah, right. Guns going off in cities just doesn't fit in too well. At least, that is, until red voters are propagating stereotypes about black inner city youth, then all the environment consists of is guns instead of schools and playgrounds.
No, we got guns in the cities, too. As much as cons like to use them as a wedge, guns are not the issue. I think you'll find we've got a few progressives in the sticks as well. Mostly, I think wingers just don't like people who aren't like them, so they disengage from the broader community and isolate themselves in tribal bubbles. It's easier for some to create their own reality when they don't have to be burdened by it.
I think you're probably right about McCain. I caught a little bit of Limbaugh today, and he seems to have his therapy hat on for now.
One of his themes was as I expected.... the Republicans lost because they tried to be "too moderate." This leads me to believe the lines may be forming for a Republican civil war, and the GOP Intelligentsia who dissed Simple Sarah will be the first ones thrown under the bus.
I will admit, I was looking forward to Sean Hannity's show today,and I just caught the beginning of it. For starters, he still doesn't know who Barack Obama is.Sean's a bit slow.
Sissy Boy is blaming the loss on the things the GOP campaign "left on the table". I expected to hear Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc. from Hannity, but he went deep stoopid-- Sean can't believe McCain didn't focus on Obama's advice to properly inflate tires for better fuel economy.He thinks they didn't spend enough time on trivia and misquotes.
I hope Hannity gets an advisory position on the 2012 GOP campaign. Maybe he could push them into a super-stoopid zone where they even lose Alabama.
Louisiana went for McCain, big time. But, my lovely town, New Orleans, went for Obama 78.7%!!!!! We have a slogan in "The Big Easy": "Proud to Call It Home". Never has that meant so much to me as it did last night.
I can take equal comfort in the fact that Nashville went for Obama, though the rest of Tennessee ran down the rabbit hole. We're a lonely, blue island in a Roiling Red Sea of Seething Stupidism.
I was monumentally proud that my home state, Ohio, went for Obama. And I was pleased to see Obama run the table in the early battleground states.
I agree with you about the case of McCain, Col. Sanders. I found his demeanor and appearance during the concession speech startling. He looked like a transformed man, as though a demon had been sucked out of his soul. Running for president was bad for him, the way the Ring was bad for Gollum, and I think he will regret a lot of what he did.
Caseysprings before we can move on i want to see Barack Obama's birth certficate??????? Just joking!!!! Feeling goooooooood today!!!!
I guess we got ourselves a "A-rab" fer a president, huh? HeHeHeHe!
Yeah, Maddog, but that's only because the GOP wasn't able to get their educational video out in time to warn Real America.
I don't think the Media will latch onto the Birth Certificate nonsense. Why? Because Birth-Certificate-Gate is too hard to say.
After four vodka martinis "birth" is hard to say.
What should be obvious to MMFA, obviously, is not. The media by and large covers the campaigns, meaning they cover what comes out of them. The McCain campaign attacked Obama on these associations because they had little else to do, thankfully they did not work. Logically, the media covered it. The Obama campaign made no issue of land deals or Liddy connections. Logically, the media covered what the Obama campaign campaigned on, and that was not it.
Also, it's now old news, move on.
Congratulations Barack Obama, your speech last night was brilliant in it's tone and grace. You make me proud to be an American.
Time to start a newer truer media disinformation site then?
OOOhTaaay!
Time to start a newer truer media disinformation site then?
As long as there is conservative misinformation out there, there will be a need for MMFA.
MMFA will be busier than ever for the next four years.
I'm up for it.
OT Crooks and liars has a link up to Fox Gnues. Asking that musical question,"What went wrong, huh?" I commented, dunno if it will survive.
Logically, the media covered it.
Correct, but only up to a certain point. Too often the media covered the attacks uncritically. Too many times all they did was echo the lies.
I'm listening to Tom Hartman right now (link-until noon left coast time), and he's taking mostly international calls for reactions to the election. INteresting to hear how the rest of the world really wants to like America. I've heard callers from Armenia, Denmark, Ireland,UK, Canada, Virgin Islands... and it's been a long time since I've heard this many people sounding happy about the U.S.
I agree Colonel. It's what is great about this country, and why, even after the recent drubbing we have taken around the world, that America can "correct" itself through free, open and fair elections.
All Americans, regardless of their political affiliation or who they supported in this election, should at least share common pride for the great country that we are.
(flag waving)
I'm listening to Tom also. He just had a Conservative "businessman" call in and assure him that Obama would overreach and try to "get gay rights" just like Clinton did, and the Republicans would filibuster everything and take over Congress again.
As Tom gave him enough rope, he declared that "Capitalism comes first; if you can't keep up, we're going to run you over!"
God bless those REAL Americans.
I heard that caller, Nerz. The guy who described the average working American as having no talent, no brains, and just wanting to collect welfare, right?
That's the one.
-- Obama would overreach and try to "get gay rights" -- nerzog
I have no idea what this caller was basing his comments concerning Obama and gays...but from the land of milk and honey came this statement:
-- In an election otherwise full of liberal triumphs, the gay rights movement suffered a stunning defeat as California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriages that overrides a recent court decision legalizing them.-- AP
Then there were those states, like MT, that rejected the abortion ban initiatives.
"The McCain campaign attacked Obama on these associations because they had little else to do, thankfully they did not work. Logically, the media covered it. The Obama campaign made no issue of land deals or Liddy connections. Logically, the media covered what the Obama campaign campaigned on, and that was not it. Also, it's now old news, move on."
That's some interesting spin. It's also interesting to note that while the McCain people were feeding the "he pals with terrorists" BS to its followers, the Secret Service was seeing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies were pushing the boundaries of the first amendment. I think big media, in many ways, downplayed and even spiked any reporting of the McCain Campaign's direct role it played on death treats made again President-Elect Obama. We can and will more on, but I think it's also important to call the McCain Campaign out for it's borderline criminal and helpfully politically extinct enterprise.
helpfully = hopefully
"Palin rallies were pushing the boundaries of the first amendment. I think big media, in many ways, downplayed and even spiked any reporting of the McCain Campaign's direct role it played on death treats made again President-Elect Obama"
You're wacko.
You're wacko.
No, Tommy. The wackos were at those McCain/Palin rallies, making threats against Obama.
They were nuts, but they are the ones responsible for their own words, nobody else.
Do you honestly think that McCain/Palin were not inciting hate with their campaign?
Miscreants! That is what mickey c. the bologne pony and sara lee palin are. I wont eat her little frozen cakes anymore. Mickey c. will be holding his head in shame unless he is without conscience. What a low-life-loser-POS he is.
Brilliantly factual and logical dissection of his point.
His idiotic point was that Palin is responsible for some wackjob in her audience, and that the McCain campaign has a direct role in death threats against Obama. If you expect that to be logically dissected, go ahead. It's loony bin stuff, sorry.
His point was that McCain set the tone by raising the buzzwords 'terrorist' and 'socialism'. It's like throwing red meat to a hungry pitbull (with or without lipstick). It was irresponsible, but all's fair in love, war and politics, right? Imagine if Obama had implied that McCain was really a Manchuriang candidate that was programmed by his Vietnam captors to take over the US?
McCain made an awesome concession speech. If only he had the wisdom to show THAT McCain throughout the campaign he might have had a shot. Instead, his campaign headed to the gutter. As far as the American people are concerned, he can stay there.
So calling Obama a socialist is having a direct role in death threats against him? Ahh, ok.....
So calling Obama a socialist is having a direct role in death threats against him? Ahh, ok.....
Tommy, here's what John Lewis said: "George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who only desired to exercise their constitutional right." Every time McCain allowed Plain to suggest Obama "palls around with terrorists" he was guilty. Every time McCain stood silently while someone in his crowd yelled "terrorist", "treason" or "kill him" McCain was just as guilty as the person who said it.
IF you CHOOSE silence, one must assume you agree with what was said.
Now I'm not saying McCain had a direct role in the threats against Obama but you cannot deny by his silence, he allowed the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against Obama.
Well said. But I wrote "direct role" instead of "role", so none of that is relevent and I'm an "idiotic" "whiner" and a "whacko". Tommy poops truth.
Stop whining about your hurt feelings, get over it.
Um, homeboy, you're the one who got bent out of shape by my *gulp* "irreprehensible" claims!?! And now you're only real gripe is my using the word direct. Oh my oh my you are the worst type of whiner. The pedantic whiner. Good lord.
Pearl, First of all, no vicious attacks have occurred against Obama, for most people know campaign rhetoric and spin when they hear it. If some nut acted on what came out of Palin/McCain rally, they more than likely didn't need that to set them over the edge. They were already there. People are responsible for their own actions, just because someone called out Obama on his associations doesn't mean they are responsible for some nut flipping out as a result, that is absurd.
Nonsense. In no way does Ayers radical actions have anything to do with the work that he did with Obama. Therefore there's no way you can suggest that is some legitimate question about his associations.
You're confusing "direct" and "indirect". If you incite someone to commit violent action, you are indirectly responsible. The person taking the action is directly responsible.
I am confusing nothing. Why don't you do some research on what inciting violence actually means, considering no violence has even occurred against Obama.
So if some violence had occured, that would refute what I'm saying? Palin wouldn't be indirectly responsible for it?
Merriam-Webster:incite stresses a stirring up and urging on, and may or may not imply initiating
What about the legal definition? That's certainly not it.
Good point, because there is no legal leg to stand and Brab knows it.
You are confused. Tommy's making the argument that since there has been no violence, it's impossible to talk about "incitement of violence". That's clearly nonsense. If there was one, Palin could be charged, and that can be discussed.
Let me be clear as you live to distort. There has been no incitement of violence, period.
So you don't think the suggestion that someone is a terrorist sympathizer and unpatriotic stirs up or urges on anything, as that person stood a good chance of running the whole country. Got it.
"stirs up or urges on anything"
So that's your benchmark now? Got it.
It always was. Whether someone acts on it is irrelevant to this. It's the difference between a potential crime and an actual one, and we're talking potential. Any charges would be based on actual violence.
There is no potential crime, that is the point you have yet to even remotely make a case for.
Sure there is. The potential crime is someone plotting against Obama.
Death threats aren't a potential crime. Read that back to yourself, because it's what you just said.
You're done.
You are either blatantly dishonest, or incredibly clueless, take your pick. The potential crime that you have yet to point out is the one you insist has been committed by Palin/McCain, to incite violence.
The context should make it clear what I'm talking about. If there was a violent act, then Palin could be held responsible. Death threats would suggest there's a serious potential for that. If I didn't word something properly, I apologize, but you should still remember the conversation at hand.
And what you have yet to make your case for, as many others here have tried to illuminate to you as well, is this. Palin's words were not inciting violence, so no matter what violent act occurs is not her responsibilty. What she said was contemptible, but it does not rise to the level of inciting violence. If you believe it does, good luck in getting any judge in this planet to even entertain your case.
Yes, because people don't really care if a terrorist sympathizer is in charge of the country. I'm sure if a Palin supporter assassinated Obama, she could just say "It just didn't occur to me that someone would resort to violence to protect their country."
I don't believe that your attitude would be the same if Obama's rhetoric had been as inflammatory as McCain's.
If and when a violent crime is committed then you can try and make your case linking it to Palin's rallies. We don't convict people before a crime is committed, you should have gotten that from your lawyer 101 class.
Where, exactly, did I say they should be charged with something? I said they weren't protected by the First Amendment, that doesn't mean they should be charged with something without a violent act behind it.
"I said they weren't protected by the First Amendment"
Well, we disagree then.
That's why Tommy shouldn't be considered for the Supreme Court.
You're not even close comparing Ayers to what Palin and McCain have done. Ayers does not have an association with Obama. Palin and McCain said things like "Obama pals around with terrorists." It is completely dishonest to claim otherwise.
You're not even close comparing Ayers to what Palin and McCain have done. Ayers does not have an association with Obama. Palin and McCain said things like "Obama pals around with terrorists." It is completely dishonest to claim otherwise.
I am confusing nothing. Why don't you do some research on what inciting violence actually means, considering no violence has even occurred against Obama.
From www.dictionary.com:
in cite
–verb (used with object), to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incite
McCain, Palin, and many of the lesser-known Republicans who spoke at their rallies said many things that may ultimately incite some unbalanced individuals to try to do harm to Barack Obama.
I'll admit - no violence has occurred yet. But two white supremecist yahoos were arrested (in Tennessee, I think) for plotting his assassination just last week. Who knows how many more will pop up, and how many were inspired to act by the hate-filled speeches and rhetoric they heard at McCain and Palin rallies???
Free speech is one thing, but it DOES carry responsibilities that go along with that free speech. Calling Barack Obama a terrorist at a political rally may be the moral equivalent of yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.
Also what people aren't considering here is that if Obama was assassinated by some Palin fan who really thought Obama was a terrorist sympathizer, that would be some pretty solid ground to set a legal precedent. There's really no argument that Palin wouldn't be morally responsible, and it would be dangerous to let people say whatever they want as long as they don't explicitly call for someone's death. That danger would have been amply demonstrated.
So now you're talking about moral responsibility and setting legal precedent? Well, at least you've softened your ridiculous original argument because you knew it was all wet, and did a 180 to appear more reasonable. I know you will never admit your emotions got in the way of common sense and free political speech laws, but it would be refreshing.
A common sense argument is exactly what this is. You think she would have a moral responsibility, a popular presidential candidate would be dead, and the First Amendment is going to protect her from consequences? Have we ever had that happen before? Do you really think we would allow it to happen again?
Disagree. Are you saying the legality of what Palin said (below) hinges on whether some kook is influenced by her words to ultimately do harm to Obama? You're getting way off base here. Again, you gotta point to the language that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Her culpability is determined by what she did and said, not by what someone thought she did or said. Her language could be considered legally inciteful regardless of the outcome (see all the "prior restraint" on speech cases).
Stating that Obama "palled around" with Ayers, a terrorist, and other leftwing radicals, is woefully insufficient to establish that she "directed . .. (above). She played dirty politics, no doubt, but that's the extent. As far as legal responsibility, she has none. As far as moral responsiblity, then we gotta look at her intent, and whether she knew there was a risk of harm.
In terms of moral responsibility, I meant that the issue is whether she should feel guilty if some right wing kook misconstrued her words as a call to do harm to obama
You're addressing a point about a new precedent by talking about the other one.
I agree you can't meet the standard that I cited. But people are still responsible for what they say, and the First Amendment doesn't allow you to say absolutely anything. She can be held accountable for what she says. If she pushes the boundaries of what is legal to the point where someone is killed, then the boundaries will move. Death threats may not be enough to do it, but an assassination would be. Is that fair to say?
One has a moral responsibility for recklessness, also, I hope you would agree with that.
Look, if she had said, "palling around with terrorists, and we need to get rid of the kind of people within our government who would do that", then perhaps you might have a case.
But there was no such specific incitement in the statement she made, I don't care what nutjob created what in his or her own mind, that is the part you can't see, obviously.
There's a declared 'war on terror' in effect in this country. 'Terrorist' is an incendiary word to use in a time like this. It was irresponsible.
The yahoos get their talking points from somewhere. Do you really think that there would be people going around calling Obama a marxist and socialist if they hadn't already seen it in a whisper email, heard it on talk radio and Fox News, or heard their party's candidate use the term? There's a reason these people sound like robots regurgitating the same BS.
I never said it wasn't irresponsible, so what is your point? It is not an incitement to violence, period.
I already said it doesn't match the precedent, so you can quit arguing that. Are you really going to say that people who believe someone sympathizes with terrorists because they don't see America as a force of good are going to say "whatever" when that person is elected President? You're sort of arguing against yourself there, because you couldn't establish intent with your example either. Palin could just say she meant impeachment or the election process.
So clearly you recognize that it's possible to incite someone to violence even without matching the precedent in question. Yet, there's no legal repurcussions for it. Obviously you're seeing the problem here, and I expect you can see how that wouldn't be allowed to happen.
If she pushes the boundaries of what is legal to the point where someone is killed, then the boundaries will move.
Easily conceivable, but again, depends on what she said and other circumstances. Using the speech posted below, if some nutjob along the lines of Travis Bickle (movie Taxi Driver) was moved by Palin's words to go out and harm Obama, that wouldn't and shouldn't render her speech incitement. I simply don't read into her words any exhortation to violence, don't believe she intended to provoke any lawlessness, and believe that 99.9% of her audience understood that she in no way sought to incite violence. As mentioned below, the standard is not, and should not be, determined by the views of some deranged individual.
But I do agree that we need to look at what someone says, and in the context in which it was said. I don't believe the standard should change, but different circumstances may make speech that was protected 20 years ago, unprotected under a different set of circumstances.
I don't know what she intended, either. However, the increase in death threats shows that she crossed a line. That's a clear indicator of potential consequences of this sort of behavior. Recklessness has effects just like anything else, it's not like drunk driving is legal because the driver didn't intend to kill someone (and yes, I know driving is a privilege, not a right). What she said was reprehensible not because it was rude or merely dishonest, but because it was dangerous. This is a huge factor in why the boundaries would change, because the magnitude of the results make the actions inexcusable, regardless of intent.
I just don't see the defense of Palin under this scenario. Like you said, different circumstances could make this sort of thing unprotected, and I don't know what else you would need if it resulted in Obama's death. And as I said, spin is one thing, but outright falsehoods and malicious slander are quite another. If Kennedy told his audiences that Nixon was a communist spy, would he really have to say "he needs to be killed" or something of the sort? Isn't the very idea of such a person in office completely unacceptable, leading certain elements to plan violent action if "necessary"?
On that note, my argument about "Travis Bickle" is that the problem isn't an interpretation of the message, it's an assumption of the solution. It's hard to get around what Palin said. Once he's elected, or sure to be elected, does one let the Democratic Congress deal with his radical terrorist sympathies? The reality is that these people are out there, especially when a key purpose of the nomination was to rev up the base. It's not like Palin was chosen with the idea that she was going to be speaking to moderates, so of course they were going to have a larger percentage of rabid fringe conservatives in her audiences whether they liked it or not. If you rile them up with lies about terrorism, then you provide a level of motivation for them that they might not have had before. That brings me back to increased death threats. Obviously some people had motivation (or much more motivation, if it's the same number of people) to do that when they didn't earlier. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the increase.
I think we have some common ground here, and I appreciate your efforts and views.
Brab, I think we exhausted this issue for now. I too think we have some common ground, and I appreciate your views as well. I enjoyed batting around the issue with you. I entirely agree that speech can be dangerous, and that balancing first amendment rights against the dangers that you mention is, in my view, complicated. I guess that's why it's always been controversial.
As I stated below, I respect your views. They are not unreasonable and definitely caused me to examine my own views on the matter with more circumspection
"They were already there."
The SS has revealed that death threats against Obama shot up after Palin incited her crowds in late Oct. early Sept. Stay blind to it if you must. But it still happened.
Oh please, there are death threats against public figures all the time. What about against Bush? Are you holding nutty leftists who called him every name in the book responsible for that? No.
Again, you are dismissing the fact that death threats against Obama shot up after Palin fed her crowds the Obama / terrorist bile. I don't dismiss her role or McCain's role, but you do. That's the only difference here. That and you're wimpy impulse to insult when you're shooting blanks.
Then why don't you contact the DA in the respective jurisdiction and urge him or her to charge Palin and/or McCain with a crime. Or do you just spout off and bluster your unproven theories on these boards to impress? Because it ain't workin' on me.
Because I want you to do it for me. Idiot.
"I need not defend any claim I make to a man who's only capable of issuing personal insults. You're up to three now, and I have been nothing but civil".....earlier.
"Idiot"......now.
Oops...
You must be "inciting" him to use harsh words
Don't worry, I would take anything you write serious anymore. "Wacko" troll.
Tommy's endless, pointless, semantics-parsing, thread-derailing arguing in which he ALWAYS has to check back and get the last word just might incite someone from this site to commit a violent act. Personally, I'm going to crumple up a piece of paper and toss it in the trash.
There. I feel better.
Totally pointless. Totally troll-like. He's almost embarrassing.
"People are responsible for their own actions"
Yes and words have meaning. McCain is responsible for fostering an atmosphere of fear, loathing and hatred. He had the opportunity to nip that crap in the bud, but he let it fester from rally to rally until he was left without a choice but to meekly rebuke a nut in one of his crowds.
Beyond using the word as a weapon, you really have no idea what the word responsibility means, do you?
McCain and Palin should have assumed control over their rallies. They fed red meat to their followers and once they were whipped into a frenzy, when either candidate heard something dangerous, it was the candidates responsibility to stop mid-speech and explain that if threats were going to be made, then those making the threats would be escorted out of the venue by the secret service.
It was obvious to me watching the expressions change on the candidate's faces that they heard exactly what the TV audience heard. Neither McCain nor Palin did anything to quell the increasingly angrier tone on their rallies. Palin at times even stepped up the rhetoric after hearing the crowd get angrier.
That makes the candidates complicit.
Worrier,
Nobody denies the nuts that were at those rallies, but once again the main point I was referring to, specifically, gets lost in the shuffle.
Victor pointedly and without evidence said that the McCain campaign had a direct role in death threats against Obama. I asked for proof, that's all. He has yet to give it, or apologize for making such an inflammatory accusation. If the rest of you are fine with that charge, so be it. I found it reprehensible.
Oh enough allready!!!! I take back "direct" role, ok? McCain and Palin played a role in the spike in death threats. The SS has pointed out that the number of threats increased at the same time their rallies were getting out of hand.
Sometimes, really really smart people just can't be bothered to make an actual counterpoint and instead, if they're really really really smart like this Tommy guy, they can just insult someone they disagress with and "move on."
Why don't you back up your assertion that the McCain campaign had a direct role in death threats against Obama, because that is what you said. If you don't expect to be challenged on that point, or expect some "counterpoint", then you aren't too smart.
I was not challanged on that point, Tommy. I was insulted by you on that point. You cropped my key point out - while the McCain people were feeding the "he pals with terrorists" BS to its followers, the Secret Service was seeing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies were pushing the boundaries of the first amendment - and simply called me a "whacko".
Good day. I am done here.
I cropped nothing, I pasted the most insidious part of what you said, people could read your full post right above.
A class act would be to say you misspoke without evidence in the death threat claim you made, or clarify what you really meant, instead of acting insulted at my asking you for proof.
And perhaps "wacko" was too strong a word, and undeserved. I apologize.
I'm not sure why you think that talk about terrorists is not incitement. Of course you do know that incitement to violence, or hate speech, is not covered by the First Amendment.
What exactly is your position here?
Please show me where Palin or McCain specifically played a direct role in death threats against Obama, because that is the claim Victor made. If you can't, then argue with someone else.
Talking about how someone is palling around with terrorists, especially someone who many people mistakenly believe is a Muslim, is incitement. That would clearly have a direct effect on people's attitudes about and reactions to that person.
I'm asking what else you believe, because that seems pretty reasonable. It was clearly incredibly irresponsible behavior at best.
I knew you couldn't give me an example.
"Palling around with terrorists" is the example. It's incitement.
I'll retract the part about "hate speech" specifically, unless it's an incitement to violence or "fighting words".
"Palling around with terrorists" is the example. It's incitement.
I disagree, to say that statement incites violence is ridiculous. I would imagine even the ACLU would laugh at you for that one.
They would have a hell of a time with that. Video of people saying that Obama is a terrorist is easily accessible online. Anyone genuinely believing anything like this has a self-justifiable reason to commit violence. Does the word "treason" mean anything to you at all?
Brab,
How many people here have called Bush a terrorist? Seems like more than a few. Is that also inciting violence?
Nobody on this site is running for President (or Vice President). Your comparison is, as usual, off the mark.
Oh, so it only applies to presidential candidates, and not the rest of us? Wow.......
Always looking for an argument, no matter how inane. OK, how about this smart guy - nobody on this site was holding mutliple daily rallies in front of thousands of people calling one certain person a muslim and/or a terrorist. Better?
So if one person with "violent impulses" and a "self-justifiable reason to commit violence" read the Bush is a terrorist post after post made here and acted upon it? It only takes one nut to inspire. Would that be inciting violence, as you and Brab have said? Because if not, you're not being consistent in your argument.
Not legally. It has to do with influence. The legalities are very subtle and not likely to be successfully probed in this forum.
Who's suggested that his actions were intended to kill Americans? Anyone who has violent impulses due to his actions in the Middle East have their own reasons outside of messages on the internet.
By "his actions" I do believe you are referring to Bush. There have been countless instances here where Bush has been accused of murder, both Americans for sending them into battle, and Iraqi's. To deny that is to not having paid attention. :-)
I think you just countered your own argument that McCain or Palin incited violence. Using your words, the same can be said for those who might wish ill upon Obama "for reasons outside of" a McCain or Palin speech.
Where did I deny anything? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
What exactly would those reasons be? What actions of Obama are relevant to them?
It might be construed as incitement since we're fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against what we're told are "terrorists". And if the candidate implies that someone is "paling around" with terrorists, or as some in the crowds have yelled "he's a terrorist" it's a short jump to believing that violence could ensue.
Inciting violence is just that, specific and pointed. It is not some statement that some might construe as setting them off.
You're right that it's probably doesn't meet the legal definition of inciting to violence, but since the crowds in question like to portray themselves as morally superior to people like me, I'm going to call this one as a morality violation and let the big guy straighten it out when he gets his hands on their filthy souls
People that yell hateful things like that at rallies are not morally superior to anyone, even if they think they are. They are disguisting.
"They are disguisting."
You mean disgusting in a bad way, right?
So are those who played a roll in inspiring their remarks and nutured them with continued claims that Obama was a pal of terrorists. McCain and Palin were borderline criminal in their actions. Play politics and give them a pass here if you must. Go on, "move on" them. Stop banging on about it already.
So are those who played a roll in inspiring their remarks and nutured them with continued claims that Obama was a pal of terrorists. McCain and Palin were borderline criminal in their actions. Play politics and give them a pass here if you must. Go on, "move on" then. Stop banging on about it already.
The truth is that Obama was a pal of unrepentent terrorists. Why do you deny it?
Define "pal".
Ayers says he got a laugh out of the "palling around with terrorists" line. (link)
I do like his T-shirt.
Sounds like he'd be someone good to pal arround with. Self acknowledged, not as smart back then as he wished, but no killer.
Define "pal".
I don't think that's gonna happen, Nerzog. No more than defining "unrepentant" or "terrorist". All three are pretty subjective, opinion-based words.
Interesting that in a sentence of about 10 words pretending to be "Truth", AA needed all three of them.
Ignore Barney. You'llnever win. I don't engage him anymore.
He really believes that Obama's a close friend to a terrorist, that Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam., that Jefferson was "an atheistic coward hell-bent on ripping Bibles from the homes of God-fearing Americans" and that John Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and the firmness of a man nor the gentleness or sensibility of a woman."
Now you've set off my curiousity WK. That quote came from where? What kind of options did that leave John A?
I put a link in the original post but since it's so hard to see embedded links, here is the link to the article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-sabato4-2008nov04,0,4993597.story
"Palling around with terrorists" is the example. It's incitement.
I'll retract the part about "hate speech" specifically, unless it's an incitement to violence or "fighting words".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is really a stretch. Anything in society can be called incitement. Violence on TV, music, reading idiocy on the internet...are any of these claims legitimate? Not in my book.
People do what they do. They are responsible for their own actions.
On another point, congratulations to Barack Obama, I was proud to vote for him and he really gave a tremendous acceptance speech last night. It was an historic day for our great nation.
Are you seriously comparing violence on TV to suggesting that the then-likely leader of the country knowingly and willingly associates with terrorists because he thinks poorly of the country he wants to lead? After having it drummed into our heads for years about how we have to worry about terrorists or they'll destroy our country?
And you want to talk about a "stretch"?
Incitement to violence is illegal. They don't have to be directly involved.
Huh? Either you incite violence directly or you don't.
Oh, and while you're at it, please show me a Supreme Court case explicitly stating that hate speech is not covered by tthe First Amendment.
Playing lawyer like you do, that should be fun for you.
Incitement to violence is not protected by the 1st Amendment. If you want to see an example case, Google "Metzger skinhead".
Did I say incite to violence? I said hate speech, they are not the same thing. Look it up.
Of course you did. You ignored the incitement part and went for the "hate speech" reference. It's your MO.
Read it again, Brab said they were both not covered by the First Amendment. Of course inciting violence is not, but I am asking about hate speech. Try and keep up.
Yeah. You might as well change the subject, when convenient.
Declaring that Obama "palled around" with an unapologetic terrorist is "incitement," and is unprotected speech outside the first amendment? Give me a break. Does it tend to create an imminent threat of violent action? Not even close. I gather you're an attorney, so surely you've learned in law school that to fall outside the first amendment the speech must be much more "inciteful" than that. Besides, it's true. He had a friendly relationship with domestic terrorist. In my view, it was a very weak argument against him, but stating it certainly doesn't equate to inciting people to kill him or threaten as much.
Of course it doesn't. Brab just like to "incite" any argument he can muster up with me. At times he lapses into stuff like this.
That's why he said that McCain flirted with incitement. He went up to the line and then stopped just short of crossing it. He will get now kudos from us for said restraint.
"That's why he said that McCain flirted with incitement"
He did?
What are you reading? Read the case you cite for the standard for Incitement, then tell me what McCain uttered that was directed to inciting imminent lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action.
Saying that someone running for the Presidency of the United States is actively associating with terrorists isn't an incitement? As if someone believing that isn't going to think that it's going to be a tremendous risk to American people?
I think you have to consider the mentality of this country, the wars we're fighting, the heightened sense of fear and alarm we've been subjected to over the last seven years, and the name of the person in question. If you honestly don't think that speech could inspire someone to take drastic action in the name of patriotism, you're not thinking about it straight.
"If you honestly don't think that speech could inspire someone to take drastic action in the name of patriotism, you're not thinking about it straight"
My lord, that is not the benchmark for inciting violence, because we as a country are in tough times and some nut might be inspired to violence, surely you know that. You are just arguing for it's own sake now.
Sorry, circumstances do make a difference. The fact that someone is a "nut" doesn't change the argument that they wouldn't be inspired to take action if the circumstances were different.
You missed the point, see Steve's response below. Apparently you need to call the ACLU for a quick refresher on the First Amendment.
Agreed. I stand by my 1st post. McCain and Palin were borderline criminal and their rallies pushed the boundaries of the first amendment. That guy's dismissing me and my points as being "idiotic" and "whacko" says more about him. He's more interested in parsing my words than McCain's and Palin's words and actions. How specia.
Parsing your words, you can't defend your specific claim that McCain had a "direct role it played on death treats made again President-Elect Obama", so you complain. Whiner.
I need not defend any claim I make to a man who's only capable of issuing personal insults. You're up to three now, and I have been nothing but civil.
You can't it defend it, period.
If I could write it over again, I would have just wrote:
"While the McCain people were feeding the "he pals with terrorists" BS to its followers, the Secret Service was seeing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies were pushing the boundaries of the first amendment. I think big media, in many ways, downplayed and even spiked any reporting of the McCain Campaign's role it played on death threats their followers made again President-Elect Obama. We can and will move on, but I think it's also important to call the McCain Campaign out for it's borderline criminal and helpfully politically extinct enterprise."
Now what's wrong with it?
Better
You're a piece of work. And you have the nerve to call me a whiner. Wow!
It's not incitement when a couple of ignorant loonies are provoked to lawlessness by their misconstruing of someone's words, particularly when the orater neither intended that effect and the overwhelming majority of the audience inferred no such intention. The first amendment doesn't work that way.
Misconstruing? No, the message that Obama is friends with radical and violent elements as he is vying to be the most powerful man in the free world stands on its own.
Brab, reading through your posts, I respect your argument, but just don't buy it. Stating the fact that Obama was friends with a guy, who 40 years ago was a violent domestic terrorist, is not "incitement." That it reflects poorly on Obama, and that McCain supporters are roused by the fact that Obama had no qualms with working with a fella who is proud of setting off bombs on our own soil, is to be expected. However, it's unquestionably protected first amendment speech. The guys was running for president. His entire public life is to be an open book. I know you know that there's all kinds of cases dealing with the issue, involving groups ranging from the Klan, skinheads, to black panthers . . .
Apparently you aren't familiar with the speech in question:
Note the lack of any sort of timeline here. One of his earliest supporters...was a domestic terrorist. Both in the past tense. There's no "40 years ago" there. There's no mention of the charity and education work that they did after Ayers was mainstreamed into society. Nothing of the sort whatsoever.
Also notice that she is creating a direct contrast between good, patriotic Americans and Obama. This is based on the idea that he's "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country". If you can really argue that there's no suggestion that Obama is unpatriotic and sympathizes with terrorism, do so. This is highly charged language, and it is not the sort of thing you say to a group of rabid supporters who are on the fringes already.
Highly charged language, maybe. Stupid inflammatory campaign rhetoric, yes. Specifically inciting violence, No.
"Specifically inciting violence"? Meaning what, she has to tell people specifically to kill him in order for it to qualify?
Read the lawful definition of what it takes to be charged and prosecuted with inciting violence and then post your results here.
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm
Thank you, but none of what you pasted has any relevance in Palin saying Obama has been "palling around with terrorists". Sorry, as Steve said below, a court would throw it out and snicker at the same time.
Take your liberal emotion out of your argument for once, call it a hideous thing for Palin to say, but beyond that it has no criminal element in it whatsoever. If you weren't so typically emotional, you would see that as well.
Read it in context, which I posted. It's not like she just said he "palled around with terrorists". She said he did it because he thought our country was so imperfect. Obama thinks terrorism against Americans is justified because he doesn't like our policies, or what? It's a hideous thing to say because it's dangerous, not just because it's in poor taste or something.
Brab. The argument doesn't rest on whether she's saying that "Obama is unpatriotic and sympathizes with terrorism."
The issue is whether her speech created an imminent threat that the audience would be provoked into lawlessness. I don't see it there in the language you highlight. He was friends with the guy. The guy did bomb and/or plan the bombing of buildings in the U.S. Yes, to an insane, illiterate person, her words could be inciteful, but she's not required to temper her speech because of how some looney will react. The first amendment doesn't proscribe otherwise free speech because of how it will reverberate between the ears of some maniac.
I bet that to 99% of her audience, thoughts of engaging in lawlessness against Obama never entered their heads. A charge of incitement based on the language above would be thrown out of any court in America, and should be in any country that endorses free "political" speech
Well stated. Case closed.
Oh, yes, she is. The circumstances are what they are. The atmosphere is what it is. She is responsible for what she says in that atmosphere.
"... her words could be inciteful..."
That's it, exactly.
How far do you go with that argument then? Because if you are going to hold up some insane nut as an example to temper what you say, you'd say nothing. Your entire argument is nonsense, and you damn well know it.
You're nonsense and you know it. Savage, O'Reilly, Llimbaugh and Hnnity never told James Adkisson directly to go shoot liberals in Tennessee, but he was incited by their eliminatioist to do just that.
Take some responsibility for your right-wing authoritarian rhetoriticians and the hate they foment
Eliminationist rhetoric.
Oh, no, she most certainly is not. The circumstances are what they are. He was friends with the guy. The audience has a right to know that fact. You highlight the threats of a handful of individuals and blithely attribute their mindset to the entire audience(s), and from there you baselessly claim that the atmosphere created by her words was one of lawlessness.
As a threshold matter, her speech comes nowhere close to losing its constitutional protections under the very definition you cite.
That aside, and by your own account, you say that political speech has to be tailored not to how the overwhelming, sane, audience will interpret it, but to the effect it will have on a few insane people. And that wouldn't get laughed out of court? In other words, a court will determine whether a speech is inciteful by scrutinizing not how it effects the overwhelming majority of the audience, but instead by a select, unstable few? Doesn't make sense.
The audience has a right to know that fact. You highlight the threats of a handful of individuals and blithely attribute their mindset to the entire audience(s), and from there you baselessly claim that the atmosphere created by her words was one of lawlessness.
I don't know what court room you think this is but the charge against McCain and Palin is that they are not worthy of respect. Their behavior at their our rallies contains the evidence. What you fail to get is that the Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that the crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. They should pay more of a price than a lost election.
Where did I attribute anything to an entire audience? And I'm not just talking about the atmosphere of her rallies. We're in a war against terrorism, remember?
Again, you pretend that she said something she didn't. He wasn't friends with a terrorist. That is a wholly dishonest and incendiary description, and you're acting as if she laid out the details of what she was talking about. If people have a right to know that, the sensitivity of the subject should compel a responsible person not to phrase things in the manner that Palin did.
That's the whole point, because a reasonable interpretation of what she said (not what you imagine she said) leads one to believe that he's sympathetic to terrorists. This is not the sort of thing you say unless you damn well mean it. It is an incredibly serious charge to make, and you can't be surprised if someone takes it as seriously as it was stated to begin with.
The funny thing is, you don't even believe we're in a war against terrorism. How can you go to war with a tactic, remember?
I can buy the argument that her speech may have been inciteful to some idiot. I can't say for sure what makes people do anything they do. Rationality doesn't always collide with reality. But do I think she would be held legally accountable for what she said? Absolutely not. There is a standard of reasonableness in our laws that this charge would not approach.
What I believe about the war on terrorism has nothing to do with the attitudes of right-wing fanatics, now does it? They aren't quite as logical.
What hasn't been addressed is that there's no misinterpretation at play here. She wasn't "misunderstood" or something. If it was a matter of that, of course you couldn't hold her accountable for death threats or violent action, because there's no reasonable way she would expect her words to be taken that way. She riled up a large group of people telling them that Obama is sympathetic to terrorists because he doesn't really like his country all that much. This is highly-charged, incendiary and dangerous rhetoric, and she can be held accountable if people take what she said seriously.
From the logic I'm seeing here, it would seem people would believe that she could have chanted "TRAITOR...TRAITOR...TRAITOR..." and she couldn't be held accountable for anyone taking action based on that.
I honestly don't believe she would be. She may be held accountable for uttering those words as a slanderous charge, but I don't believe she would be held accountable by our legal system for an action taken by someone else because of what she said.
You guys are putting this in a vacuum. Are you considering what the national atmosphere would be like under these circumstances? Do you really think that the courts would look at this and allow people to do the same thing in the future? When people can no longer be expected to conform to moral behavior, then laws are enacted or interpreted to adjust to that.
He was friends with the guy, and it's dishonest to wholesale deny that fact. They may not have been "drinking buddies" and didn't attended ball games together, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that they had a friendly relationship, that Ayers was an early supporter of Obama, and that the latter held the former with esteem. He definitely didn't treat Ayers with the scorn which many believe he deserves. "Friends" is a loose term, and susceptible to all kinds of qualifiers that either distance or bringer closer the alleged relationship. Do you feel it would be better if instead of stating that they "palled around", Palin said Ayers was a guy with whom Obama had a 'friendly relationship"?
"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?”
That's BS. But taken in context with the rest of what you posted, still its not incitement. I see you backed off your assertion that the first amendment is tailored to the insane, but now you claim nonetheless that her speech could be (or was) reasonably interpreted by the bulk of those in audience as an exhortation to lawlessness (and yes, in view of all the circumstances . . .). And furthermore, that her speech was directed to imminently bring about the lawlessness? Here we differ, and your conclusion seems based on the dismissive view that the bulk of her audience were right-wing fanatics. In my view, the audience members in attendance who believed the claim that Obama is sympathetic to Ayers, a terrorist, would not also believe that it was a call to arms, let alone that Palin intended that effect.
Your up against a constitutional standard that weighs heavily in favor of free political speech. She's not advocating violence in any matter. She's stretching the truth, but her intention is clear -- don't vote for Obama
What I would have liked is for her to say he was a former terrorist, and make it clear that Obama knew him at that point. To say he hung out with a terrorist because he doesn't see America like "we" do and thinks it's not a force of good and is imperfect is incendiary. That goes well beyond some garden-variety political spin.
Your use of the word "insane" is improper. I'm not talking about people who don't know the difference between what's criminal and what isn't. The interpretation is reasonable no matter who you're talking about, so it doesn't rely on the percentage of the audience that were fanatics.
What exactly is the defense of Palin here? She didn't think her audience took terrorism seriously? Or that she thought people who believed this would just shrug off a potential Obama administration and say "whatever"? You're talking about the highest stakes imaginable here, the person with the most power in this hemisphere. You really don't think the circumstances are a factor here, or what?
Personally, I don't find that logical at all. The argument being made is that, logically, in a democratic republic, the purpose of a free press with constitutional protection is to report what the campaigns want reported, and not to facilitate an informed electorate. This is bass-ackwards. What the campaigns want covered and not covered is supposed to be irrelevant. The purpose of a free press is to provide citizens with the impartial information they need to wield their ultimate authority, not to chase the partisan balls that a particular campaign chooses to toss. A press that chases only those balls they're told to chase isn't a free press at all, it's just a pool of stenographers and lap dogs. And I agree that MMFA is going to be busy, busy, busy for the next four years while the press dutifully finds ways not to report on endless Republican obstructionism. A press that reports only what its told to report will become old news when they stop doing it, and not a minute sooner.
I tend to agree. The Press has squandered its Constitutional mandate. Unfortunately, I don't know what to do about it.
It will be interesting to watch what happens once Obama takes office. I have no doubt that the Republicans will filibuster any progressive legislation. When the Democrats used the filibuster, or even threatened to, the press dutifully repeated Republican accusations of "obstructionism!" Will they treat the inevitable Republican filibusters the same way?
Nerzog--I don't have an answer, either, but I think that more diverse ownership of the media would help. It's not a panacea, but it would help get more viewpoints out there.
Nerzog--I don't have an answer, either, but I think that more diverse ownership of the media would help. It's not a panacea, but it would help get more viewpoints out there.
Congratulations to Barak Obama! America has shown the world that the era of racial division in our country is now past. The election of Obama tells the world that the American dream holds true for everyone! It is a great day for all Americans.
AA,
While I think we still have a long way to go with regards to racial division in this country, your congrats is heartfelt and acknowledged :).
Why, AA, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were being sarcastic.
I think Barney's working one of the wingnuts "silver linings to an Obama victory" themes; The election of Obama means that racism and all related problems are solved. Therefore, AA and his friends never need to acknowledge "those people" again.
ps to Barney-- you should learn to spell your new president's name correctly.It'll keep the schoolchildren from making fun of you. ;0) ;0) ;0)
Gomer,
Speaking of grammatical errors, perhaps you should take a look at your own post?
I suspect the irony is lost on you.
Who was speaking of grammatical errors? BTW, how do you feel about your judgement on the Palin pick as "genius"?
Just as I suspected. :-)
0 for 2 on my questions, and extra credit fail on "irony". Keep up the good work!
;0)
I too was heartened when Bill Bennett said as much last night on CNN (this guy was Sec. of Education? Why can't he speak?);
Bennett: Well, I'll tell you one thing it means, as a former Secretary of Education: You don't take any excuses anymore from anybody who says, 'The deck is stacked, I can't do anything, there's so much in-built this and that.' There are always problems in a big society. But we have just -- if this turns out to be the case, President Obama -- we have just achieved an incredible milestone. For which the rest of the world needs to have more respect for the United States than it sometimes does.
And since this vote in FL was on Monday, it doesn't count...
"Fla. board keeps Klan leader's name at high school"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_re_us/confederate_controversy
I hope Bill Bennett, the admitted compulsive gambler, bet heavily on Obama. Though, the odds made a minimal payout on such a bet. Perhaps there was an over/under on the final electoral count.
I thought about buying McCain Intrade shares just to hedge my bets in case the improbable happened and Obama lost. In the end, I chose not to.
It is a historic moment for us all. I disagree with President-elect Obama politically, but I recognize the symbolism of his election. I'm proud to be another American. :-)
America has shown the world that the era of racial division in our country is now past.
AA, nice try.
Electing Obama is not the end of racial division. There's a lot to repair in this country, too much for Obama to do alone, especially in one term. But, we have broken a barrier.
Pearlene,
I did not say it was the end of racial division, (although I hope it is). I said it was the end of an era.
Congratulations. I agree that a barrier has been broken.
God Bless President Elect Obama. What a wonderful time for our nation.
Right on Doris...I'am sooooo proud that people didn't fall for the okie-doke...Today the sun is shining on us!!!!
A must read: Washington Post, today, article by columnist Michael Gerson, "Hail to the Chief". Read not only the article, but the comments.
Interesting article, with some good points. As a couple of commenters pointed out, his credibility evaporates when he blurts this out:
"Liberals have perfected this machinery of disdain over the past few years."
Liberals have certainly gotten better at using this machinery in recent years, but it was "perfected" by the Republicans back in the 90s. To pretend that demonization of political opponents is somehow exclusive to the Left is blatantly dishonest.
give it a rest
I just visited the land of the FrePer's. Lots of opinions no facts. A whole bushel of whining. I love it.
And more bothersome the shadows of what I would call treason, sedition, and a general hate of the USA. I could not find one person of the FrePer ilk who wished the country well.
They are a sad, scared little persons. And that makes them dangerous -- as in I hope someone is looking at them in at least the same way Homeland Security was watching Quaker prayer groups opposed to the Iraq Invasion.
It is hard to fathom why, after the election is over, MMfA is citing a laundry list of "wrongs" by the same media that was generally more favorable to President-elect Obama than Senator McCain. I will not go so far as to say this paper or network was "in the tank" for a particular candidate but coverage was rarely equal and critical to both sides. As much as I dislike Sean Hannity, he is right to a certain degree when he says that journalism is dead; I just include Hannity in that same group. I didn't vote for Obama but now that the election is over I will go on and do the best I can every day for me and my family. That's America and I am thankful that we can have an election and honor the results. This is a historic event and MMfA should just give it a rest for one day...would it hurt?
Because the media didn't "favor" Obama. This is a myth propagated by the right. The premise of your entire post is discredited.
Hi and thank you for the reply. My post is nothing more than my opinion and based entirely on my observation of several sources and not "propaganda" from any particular sector. It is not all-inclusive; no one's opinion or observation is. The beauty of these forums is we can agree to disagree. If you believe that the premise of my post is discredited then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Others may or may not agree with either one of us and that's fine with me as well. I do not ever post to convince anyone that my view is the correct one. At the end of the day no one is really going to care. I sincerely thank you for your input.
If you don't want to convince anyone with your post, then you are doing a good job of it.
I think if someone is going to say the media was "generally more favorable to...Obama" then they should back that up with some facts, not just and assumption of fact. When pressed these people protest with, "Oh come on EVERYONE knows that the press is liberal and for Obama" without providing a shred of evidence. Sorry if that's not enough for me and most of my ilk on this board.
"This election was certainly not about the issues. In the general election, Barack Obama campaigned as a centrist, titularly abandoning his more extreme positions to do so. He lied about his policies. And no one cared. This election was about one thing and one thing only: Americans’ puerile need for unity through self-congratulatory, cathartic membership in a broad, transformative political movement. Apparently, we’re no longer interested in the dirty business of politics. We’d rather feel ourselves part of a high-minded movement. Not the sort of movement that espouses particular policies -- not the antiwar movement, or the pro-life movement -- those movements are too divisive. We want to be part of a movement that is solely about Barack Obama was the vessel for that movement. He was an utter cipher. But he embodied the need of the American public for unity by hearkening back to the ultimate unifying feature of American life: third-grade slogans. He spouted Hope and Change. He told us, “We’re All Americans.” He told us, “Yes, We Can.” We wanted to feel good again. That is what the Great Election of 2008 was about. It was about Americans’ desire to feel a part of Something Larger. To do something together, as Americans. In today’s day and age, that Something Larger cannot be the America Ronald Reagan preached about -- the left has attacked that America as racist, sexist, and selfish. That Something Larger had to be an individual who could provide us with the feeling of unity. Barack Obama told us that we could do Something Larger simply by voting for him. When he said, “Yes We Can,” and we followed by screaming it, chanting it, shouting his name in unison, we were Doing Something Larger. We were uniting. America has always recognized that unity for its own sake is useless at best and dangerous at worst. Unifying behind a mysterious charismatic figure promising transformational change may make us feel good, but it is a betrayal of the open and honest governmental debate our Founding Fathers sought and so many Americans have fought and died to preserve."
So where’s Palin’s pooh-poohing of consensus now? Fresh out of Anthrax.
Hannity seriously needs to have someone rescue his head from the bowl of Ayers bulldip.
Blabbing up the empty Ayers smear campaign without so much as a look back at the D.C. Anthraxing and history of its legal runaround, evasion, recrimination on a USA Today reporter, then finally a macabre offing of a key insider who gets pinned with the whole rap postumously in the 11th hour. Kill the strongest witness by having thrown them in the gulags all these years in order to pin the crime they can attest in a court of law on them instead–with no chance for the dead involved party to refute the post tense lawyer shellacking, in proceedings the public and press is locked out of–an immoral outrage of unbridled totalitarian brutality laundering its crimes with more cloak and dagger……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………