Now that the Democratic Party seems poised to retake the House, Fox News gets concerned about the voting machines. Where were they in 2002 and 2004, when the polls were nearly dead-even and every single Diebold “error” miraculously ended up favoring the Republican Party?
…and, a 10 minute video summarizing the Princeton study (which is one of many studies & tests showing how our votes are being stolen):
As anyone who’s seen a brilliant trailer and then gone to find out that the movie was total crap knows, it’s easy to give a false impression with a few simple editing tricks. For the past couple days, the Drudge Report and other right-wing sites have been downright orgasmic over a 50-second clip that they claimed showed Clinton coming unhinged and being forced by Fox News to admit he failed to prevent 9-11. Watch a longer version of that interview, which has just a little bit more substance following the “I failed” part than the Fox promo would suggest.
There’s been so much whine coming from the direction of the “Fair & Balanced” network that you’d think they were based in Napa. “Boo hoo, Bill Clinton raised his voice! Waaaah, Bill Clinton looked at me angry! Mommy! Mommy! Mommmmyyyyyy!” Today, Fox even tried to portray Clinton’s forceful response to their interviewer as an attack upon all of journalism. Why Ailes confused Fox News with journalism, I have no idea.To hear them tell it, Clinton ripped off his shirt, turned lime green and feasted on poor Chris Wallace’s intestines before relieving himself on the First Amendment. That’s not exactly how it happened.Meanwhile Keith Olberman has a different take on it:
OK, let me get this straight: If you criticize Sean Hannity and call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, that makes you an “Enemy of the State.” (I know, I know, Hannity and his kind confusing a man – whether himself or the President – with “the State” isn’t anything new).I don’t know what’s worse — the fact that Hannity chose to name a segment of his show after the favorite phrase of every dictator from Caesar to Hitler, the fact that anyone is actually watching that show, or the fact that I’m wasting my time commenting on it. At this point, commenting on the irresponsible behavior of the Fox News personalities may be no more necessary than pointing out how water is really, really wet.
Nice try, Chicago Sun-Times:
Barack Obama’s week-old presidential campaign has been hit with a smear. Hillary Clinton’s White House bid, launched Saturday, has been attacked with an unfounded accusation. Contrary to what was reported in Insight magazine and then repeated on Fox News and in other news outlets, including a column that ran in the Sun-Times by free-lancer Mark Steyn, Obama was not educated in a radical Islamic school when he was an elementary student in Jakarta.And there is no evidence whatsoever that Clinton’s campaign had anything to do with spreading the damaging rumor that Obama hid a Muslim background.The source for both slurs started in a report posted on the Web site of Insight, a conservative magazine published by the Washington Times. The article with no named sourcing alleged that researchers connected to Clinton dug up information about Obama as part of a “background check.”
You mean Obama didn’t attend a radical Islamist madrassa when he was six? Are they trying to tell us he didn’t plot the destruction of America between nap-time and Play Doh lessons? Next the Lib’ral Media’s going to try telling us he never actually burned the flag while cross-dressing when he ran that abortion clinic in San Francisco. They must think they’re dealing with idiots.
Like alcoholic parents trying to disavow their crack-whore son, the Washington Times is attempting to distance itself from the bogus Obama-madrassah story — a story that they and Fox News had amplified.
The Washington Times, which is also owned by the Unification Church, but operates separately from the Web site, quickly disavowed the article. Its national editor sent an e-mail message to staff members under the heading “Insight Strikes Again” telling them to “make sure that no mention of any Insight story” appeared in the paper, and another e-mail message to its Congressional correspondent instructing him to clarify to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama that The Washington Times had nothing to do with the article on the Web site. “Some of the editors here get annoyed when Insight is identified as a publication of The Washington Times,” said Wesley Pruden, editor in chief of The Washington Times.
But can the Washington Times disavow itself?
Barack Obama announced last week he was forming an exploratory committee to explore whether he can really be as fabulous as the media say. And happily the answer is: Yes. He is young, gifted and black, and white and Hawaiian and Kansan, and charismatic and Congregationalist, and Muslim. He rejects the way “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” he represents “a different kind of politics.” He smokes, which is different.He was raised in an Indonesian madrassah by radical imams, which is more than John Edwards can say. …The madrassah stuff was supposedly leaked to Insight Magazine by some oppo-research heavies on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s team. If true, that suggests Hillary is losing her touch. It’s certainly the case that a foreign education doesn’t always assist in electoral politics: John Kerry didn’t play up the Swiss finishing school angle. But look at it from a Democratic primary voter’s point of view, the kind who drive around with those “CO-EXIST” bumper stickers made up of the cross and the Star of David and the Islamic crescent and the peace sign. Your whole worldview is based on the belief that deep down we would all rub along just fine and this neocon fever about Islam is just a lot of banana oil to keep the American people in a state of fear and paranoia. What would more resoundingly confirm that view than if the nicest, most nonbitter, nonpartisan guy in politics turns out to have graduated from the Sword of the Infidel Slayer grade school in Jakarta?
Maybe someone at the Washington Times needs to circulate another memo.CNN, through the rare implementation of something called “journalism,” debunked this nonsense last week::
Faux News affiliates sure are subtle, aren’t they?
Don’t think subliminal crap like this works? Take a look at how well it works even on people who make their living at it (watch it through to the end for the payoff):
A few questions to keep in mind while watching the latest salvo in the Faux News bombardment of Senator Obama:1. So we haven’t seen Obama smoke. Since when have we seen any politician smoke? Do they expect the Senator to fire up a Marlboro while he’s on camera with Wolf Blitzer?2. Why does the commentator who’s apparently on this show because they want a Black man to comment on Obama make the argument that America only cares about the Senator because he’s Black? Is this guy Fox’s resident Irony Expert?3. Where does the Media get off calling him “Barack?” Where do we all get off calling Senator Clinton “Hillary?” Do we routinely refer to White male Senators as “Trent,” or “Edward,” or do we give them the respect of using their title or at least their last names?4. Since when does not smoking in public make someone duplicitous?5. “Mammy?”
I saw something on YouTube the other day (I’ve posted it below) that I found disturbing. But luckily, I had the foresight to pull out and leaf through my tattered copy of The Modern American’s Guide for Interpreting Other People’s Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™. I carry it with me everywhere I go. It comes in handy in department stores, for instance.Just a few months ago at Target, I found myself wondering why a security guard seemed to be following me at a distance as I perused the cargo shorts aisle. I started to feel nervous. I kept walking, and the nerves turned to incredulity, the kind where the world sort of slows down and you start to feel detached, like your’e watching something absurd instead of living it. I saw his eyes poke around the corner behind the socks to look at me looking at black boxer briefs. I started to feel my ears burn as the detachment faded into anger. That’s when the manual saved me. It was right there on page 92, under “The Target Security Guard.” It said “He’s not suspicious of you because you’re Black/Mixed/Whatever-the-hell-you-are, he’s suspicious of you because you’re a teen-ager.” That would’ve made sense years ago, when I first bought the manual, but what the hell, I’m not old yet. It could still apply.Now that was a relief. Life is easier with the manual. People seem much less ridiculous. Sunsets are rosier. The air even smells fresher, somehow.So when I saw a link that had the words “Fox” and “Obama” in the same sentence, I immediately reached again for that manual. I sure am glad I did. Watch this clip, and then I’ll tell you how The Modern American’s Guide for Interpreting Other People’s Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™ helped me put it all in perspective:
Now, according to The Modern American’s Guide for Interpreting Other People’s Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™, there was absolutely nothing racist about any of this. Here’s what it said, right there on page 18,978:
Clip from Fox News’ allegedly satirical take-off on The Daily Show: “The 1/2 Hour News Hour”1. Time index 01:01- Masses of dancing Africans are shown while Fox mentions Barack Obama supporters.This is not – we repeat, NOT – Fox News intentionally trying to scare White viewers with the thought of hordes of unruly dark people taking over the streets. They probably just couldn’t find any other footage on such short notice.2. Time index 01:14- “BO Magazine”This is not Fox using racial code words & concepts in an ongoing campaign to help as many of their viewers as possible get back in touch with their inner bigots. This is not – we repeat, NOT – Fox News dredging up the age-old stereotype about Black people smelling bad. That stereotype hasn’t been widely used for at least several decades. Several years. Well, at least several months. So it’s unreasonable to think anyone at Fox has heard of that stereotype, much less that anyone there would intentionally employ it.2. Time index 01:37- “Organize Your House – and your Senate”Fox News is not trying to conjur up the image of a Black housekeeper. In fact, this is more evocative of magazines aimed at housewives. So maybe they’re complimenting Barack Obama’s wife. Have you ever stopped to think of that?2. Time index 01:46- “Barack vs. Tiger Woods: Who’s More Diverse? “This is not an example of Fox News mocking the very existence of mixed-race Americans in order to reinforce deep-seeded White resentment. They’re actually praising diversity – showing how grateful they are that we live in a country where anyone can marry and raise kids with whomever they want (‘long as they’re not queer).2. Time index 02:03- “Don’t tell Mama, I’m for Obama”Nothing to see here.
Thanks for making life more bearable, The Modern American’s Guide for Interpreting Other People’s Behavior: Women/Minority/Gay Edition™!
…Yet Fox News continues to rely on Victoria Toensing, the woman who, as far as I’ve been able to learn – has never spoken to either the CIA or Valerie Plame and has never seen any of the classified information regarding Valerie Plame’s work or role, as an “expert” commentator.And by the way, pay attention to the last minute and a half, where Hannity and Toensing try to tell us how it’s Plame’s and Wilson’s fault that Plame’s cover was blown. Plame apparently donated $1000 to Al Gore’s campaign in 2000 and attended some (gasp) Democratic meetups. In Toensing and Hannity’s warped world, Plame should’ve known that doing so was a dead giveaway that she was a covert CIA agent specializing in monitoring the proliferation of WMD. And Joe Wilson writing that op-ed exposing the lies the President told about uranium tubes from Niger? Well, he should’ve known better. Naturally the White House was going to expose the name of a covert CIA operative, as well as her entire network of contacts, seriously damaging our ability to follow WMD and possibly resulting in the killing of other undercover operatives – all to discredit a critic. Who wouldn’t have expected them to do that?Also, note how the “Fair and Balanced” network doesn’t invite anyone to dispute Toensing:
