Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Global Incident Map: where Reality meets Sesame Street

 
Bruce Kesler at the Democracy Project:

Stop arguing with your liberal friends about what a dangerous place the world is, and just send them this website. A friend just sent it to me. It’s called Global Incident Map: A Global Display of Terrorism and Other Suspicious Events.

You have to see it to believe it, and I really mean to believe it: The world is a very dangerous place.

Of course, the truly hardcore liberals progressives will simply blame Chimpy J. Rumsfeld and then go back to the WTC 7 discussion board where like-minded geniuses debate the controlled demolition methods employed by Cheney McHalliburton.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Hot Air Video: CNN and the Politics of Planting

 
Outstanding.

I'm a Uniter, not a Divider

 
I can die happy. I've been linked by the incomparable Rush Limbaugh, The Spectator and Randi Rhodes all on the same day.

See, I am a uniter and not a divider!

In all seriousness, credit goes to the earliest leaders on this story. Instapundit, Dan Riehl, Gateway Pundit, Jammie Wearing Fool, and the indomitable Larwyn were the first folks calling attention to it.

And Suitably Flip wins the headline award: Botanical Explosion Among Cnnium Genus.

If you missed the back-story, see 'All six of CNN's "undecided voters" were Democratic operatives' and 'CNN's purges its "Protect CliNtoN" debate transcript'.

* * *

Other great lines from CNN's debate meltdown (aside from the easy out of using the phrase Wolf Blitzer as an all-purpose punchline):

* Dan Riehl: "You can't spell Clinton without C-N-N."

* Dinah Lord: "You practically needed a machete, the plants were so thick on the ground in the Dem's Vegas debacle debate."

* Information Dissemination: "This strikes me as business as usual for the Clintons, as I sit and observe entitlement in America in action enabled by the media supposedly intended to protect the citizens from people in power, but has become the vehicle for those in power to do as they please.."

* SnafuBar: "That they would all be Democrats would be unsurprising, that they would all be party operatives just shows you how hollow are the positions espoused by those on the left.."

Saturday, November 17, 2007

All six of CNN's "undecided voters" were Democratic operatives

 
UPDATES BELOW - CNN hits bottom and digs: All six debate questioners appear to be Democratic Party operatives. So much for "ordinary people, undecided voters". To paraphrase Junior Soprano, CNN is so far up the DNC's hind end, Howard Dean can taste hair gel.

In a nutshell, CNN's six "undecided voters" were:

A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist

Wow. This looks "rather" like a scandal. Hot Air:

...You’d think the network’s audience might want to know who among the questioners has had a paid, formal relationship with the party.

...I went back to the beginning of the debate to see how Blitzer introduced the format. Did he offer any details on who’d be doing the questioning? Why, yes. After mentioning that the debate was sponsored by the national party — something likely understood by most viewers as a mere formality — he described them as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” Note: not even “undecided Democrats.” Just undecided.

Word on the street is that Hillary's staffers are extremely pleased with CNN's Wolf Blitzer for his softball questioning of Sen. Clinton during Thursday's Las Vegas debate. Blitzer "was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far."

Who were the questioners upon whom Blitzer called? According to CNN, they were "ordinary people, undecided voters.” Like these folks:

Plant #1: LaShannon Spencer, whom Blitzer introduced as an "undecided voter", was tagged by Dan Riehl: in truth, she served as the political director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas.

Plant #2: Khalid Kahn, who expressed concern about profiling and the Patriot Act, asked "[m]y question is that -- our civil liberties have been taken away from us. What are you going to do to protect Americans from this kind of harassment?" Classical Values notes that Mr. Kahn is the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, who has hosted conferences like this one (with guest speakers like Muzzamil Siddiqi). In fact, Kahn in no stranger to CNN, appearing on a show called Keeping the Faith in Sin City.

Plant #3: Suzanne Jackson -- mother of a three-term Iraq war veteran -- is aso a well-known antiwar activist. She appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal protesting -- with a poor monkey, no less -- outside of Harry Reid's office in May. Note: Suzanne Jackson may have been mistaken with Jeannie Jackson, another vet's Mom. See Update IX, below.

Plant #4: Maria Luisa -- the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" -- wrote that CNN forced her to ask the "frilly" question instead of a pre-approved query regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility.

Update: Andy writes to point out the eerie similarities between Maria L. Parra-Sandoval and "Maria Luisa." Regarding Ms. Parra-Sandoval, the UNLV website states:

This spring she will serve as the political communications intern for Senator Harry Reid in Washington, D.C. Currently a junior at UNLV, Maria is... is an immigrant on a quest to become a United States citizen.

In other words, she's not even eligible to vote, unless the Democrats changed the rules when I wasn't looking (Added later: Commenter wjb states that "Maria Parra-Sandoval was sworn in as U.S. a citizen in Las Vegas by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt in March 2006." So presumably she really is eligible to vote).

Update II: rumors are flying of a fifth plant. An anonymous commenter at Gateway Pundit writes that the "50-ish lady who 'asked" her memorized question was a union offical. Gee, lucky she got in!" Judy Bagley, a 27-year cashier at Fitzgerald's was quoted in RGT Online (a gaming magazine) in an article about Culinary Workers Union Local 226's collective bargaining agreement.

Update III: Judy Bagley was definitely a fifth plant. An anonymous email alerts me to this portion of the debate transcript:

Obama: Well, first of all, Judy, thank you for the question, and thanks for the great work you do on behalf of the culinary workers, a great union here.

Update IV: an anonymous email alerts me to a possible sixth and final plant. George Ambriz is an Executive Director of the ¡Sí Se Puede! Foundation and is a recruiter at UNLV. His bio states:

George joins our team from Douglas, Arizona, having earned his associate’s degree in administration of justice from Cochise College in 2000. He obtained his bachelor’s degree in political science and criminal justice from Western New Mexico University. He is currently completing a master’s degree in ethics and policy studies at UNLV. He plans to pursue doctorate and law degrees, practice corporate law, and become active in politics.

Care to guess which party's politics George is active in?

Update V: Andy writes to add some more background on Suzanne ("Jeannie") Jackson. On September 20, 2001, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) cast the only vote against the resolution authorizing President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

Jeannie Jackson wrote a supportive note on the Mother Jones website. She's active on the site of Soros front group Americans United for Change and hangs out at Dem site Think Progress. She also had a harsh antiwar letter published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Andy's snarky question: "Just another undecided voter I guess. Right?"

Update VI: A commenter at LGF provides an insightful summary:

Wow this is a scandal.

A Dem activist from Ark
An anti-war activist
A union activist
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer

All being presented by CNN as undecided voters.

Update VII: An anonymous email alerts us to Kahn's background as a heavy Democratic contributor (e.g., $2000 to Harry Reid earlier this year):



Update VIII: Another helpful email points us to lefty blogger Live from Silver City:

Ambriz was just before my time at WNMU, but I later met him in Las Vegas at a model United Nations conference. Like me, Ambriz was heavily involved in student government and other clubs while at WNMU — he served as president of MEChA...

What ic MEChA?

According to this website, "The official national symbol of MEChA is an eagle holding a machete-like weapon and a stick of dynamite... The acronym MEChA stands for Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan... [it] is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience... [they] romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States -- a Chicano country called Aztlan. In its national constitution, MEChA calls for self-determination by its members to liberate Aztlan."

From all appearances, MEChA wants to overthrow the United States government. The American Patrol has more.

In a discussion board post, George Ambriz states "my name is George R. Ambriz, former student of Western New Mexico University, more importantly, a former M.E.Ch.A. President... we worked in sync... with the local and state Democratic Party to inform many people about the importance of voting..."

Update IX: An alert reader notes that Catherine Jackson and Jeannie Jackson -- both Mothers of Iraq War vets -- may have been mistaken for each other by several bloggers, yours truly included. More info to come.

Update X: A pro-Obama blog links to this story and offers some additional insights:

A conservative blogger reports that the “Diamonds vs. Pearls” questioner was a former staffer for Nevada Democratic Party Chair, Harry Reid. Reid’s son heads Hillary Clinton’s Nevada campaign.

LaShannon Spencer, the woman who asked about court judges, is a high-level staffer for the Arkansas Democratic Party and has been so since the 1990s. Bill and Hillary hail from Arkansas.

Update XI: It appears CNN has removed Ms. Spencer from their copy of the transcript!

* * *

Dan Riehl also notes that of 1,000 tickets given to UNLV, a measly one hundred made it to students.

I'm glad CNN randomly selected ordinary people like you and me. We wouldn't want anyone to think that Hillary was shielded from all of the tough, grueling questions that Tim Russert asked.

Seriously, it looks like CNN and Hillary's staffers (but I repeat myself) really had this thing rigged from the get-go to avoid a Russert-esque browbeating.

Hat tip: Larywn. Instapundit, Gateway Pundit and Jammie Wearing Fool were on this from the very start. And even the New York Times is criticizing CNN's Hillary bias.

Linked by Instapundit, Ace of Spades, American Thinker, Captain's Quarters, Dan Riehl ("you can't spell Clinton without CNN"), Dr. Sanity, Ed Driscoll, Gateway Pundit, Jammie Wearing Fool, Jawa Report, National Review's Campaign Spot, Patterico's Pontifications and Polipundit. Thanks!

Notes: Captain's Quarters and the NRO are somewhat underwhelmed with the magnitude of the controversy. Frequent commenter jpm100 put it best when he said:

It isn't that they are Democrats.

It's that their careers are either with the Democratic Party or need a good Relationship with the Democratic Party.

They basically could be counted upon to softball Hillary because their careers depended on it.

Axis of Idiots

 
Now that the Democratic primary is heating up, J. D. Pendry's post from 2006 is worth revisiting (hat tips: Sgt. Kirk and Larwyn).

Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.

They need you to do it now.

J.D., apologies for quoting the whole thing, but it's too good to cut into soundbites.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Michael Yon: Come Home

 
This generation's Ernie Pyle is Michael Yon. He describes a stunning scene in Baghdad that you will never, ever, ever see reported in today's mainstream media.

St. John's Church -- located in the heart of Baghdad -- celebrated Mass.

Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq."

If you don't start to tear up reading his report, well, I'm not sure you're human.

Go to Michael's site and give him a couple of bucks. He has absolutely no support from the mainstream media, so it's up to you and I to fund his incredible reporting.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Hillary's Pardons-for-Cash

 
Jammie Wearing Fool points us to a troubling ABC report ("Hillary Clinton Takes Cash From Recipients of Husband's Controversial Pardons"):

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety...

Of course, word has it that debate moderator Wolf Blitzer was warned not to 'pull a Russert' (ask Hillary tough questions). So I'm imagining the following scene at tonight's debate.

Senator Clinton, ABC is reporting that you are accepting campaign contributions from recipients of your husband's controversial pardons. Given the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, why wouldn't you return these funds?

Wolf, you were warned about this.

Don't tase me, Hill!!!

***BZZZZZZZZZAHTTTTTTTTT!!!***

Senator Clinton, is it tough being the only woman in a Presidential race?

Much better! Why, Helen, I'm glad you asked that question...

Hat tip: Larwyn

Rather: CBS execs covered up for Bush

 
If you need additional proof that Dan Rather is 100% bat-s**t crazy, I think it's arrived in a gift-wrapped box. The Democracy Project notes:

CBS says it takes an absence from reality to take Dan Rather’s lawsuit against CBS seriously... [his assertion] that he was dismissed in a widespread conspiracy to cover up for Bush among CBS’ liberal management. In CBS’s response to New York’s Supreme Court, the network says as much:

The Complaint is predicated on allegations of a bizarre 'scheme' extending from the White House to an array of CBS executives including Sumner Redstone, CBS's Executive Chairman, Leslie Moonves, CBS's Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew Heyward, formerly president of CBS News, all of whom, according to Rather, colluded to harm Rather's reputation and keep him off the air," add CBS lawyers. "Of course, there was no such nefarious scheme, and Rather's allegations bear no resemblance to reality. CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather."

CBS also says, "If we are required to proceed beyond this point, we will defend the case vigorously and demonstrate that the lawsuit is wholly without merit, and that the bizarre allegations by Mr. Rather are untrue."

...The Silicon Alley Insider, a NY digital business blog, comments: “The company took the predictable stance: Dan Rather was once a great man and a valued colleague. It's too bad he has since gone insane.”

LGF's classic animated memo that ended Rather's employment at CBS told us that long ago.


Rather believes that a typewriter from the seventies could produce a document precisely matching one created in Microsoft Word. Oh, and that CBS is pro-Bush. Both assertions should be enough to have the poor soul committed.

Tim Russert's Devastating "Character Attack" on Hillary

 
After Hillary's disastrous debate performance in the last debate, the Clinton machine went on the warpath:

“This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,” a senior Clinton aide told cyberjournalist Matt Drudge. “Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull ‘a Russert.’ ”

"Pull a Russert"?

Let's examine Russert's devastating character attack in more detail. Here, from the official MSNBC transcript, are all of Russert's questions to Clinton:

Tim Russert: Senator Clinton, rebuttal?

Russert: Senator Clinton?

Russert: We're going to get to Social Security in a little bit, but I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton... As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only member of the stage here who did that...
Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war... Why did you vote for that amendment which would -- calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?

Russert: I want to ask each of you the same question. Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

Russert: But you won't pledge?

Russert: But, they may.

Russert: Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let's talk about Iraq. One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was recently quoted saying, quote, "I don't oppose the war. I have never heard Senator Clinton say 'I oppose the war.'" Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

Russert: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave? Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

Clinton: Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.

Russert: Senator Clinton, please.

Russert: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no." Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Russert: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

Russert: You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: "We are in a -- heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits," Bill Clinton, 1998.

That's recent history. Only two years to go in his term. Is that a Republican talking point?

Russert: I'd like to talk about taxes. Senator Clinton, I'd like to start with you. Because the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, is a strong supporter of your campaign. He wants to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. But he also wants to have a 4 percent surtax on a single $150,000 income or $200,000 married couple. You went to Harlem with your husband, with Charlie Rangel. And the former president said, quote, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea." Is that also your view?

Russert: So in principle, you would be in favor of looking at a 4 percent surtax?

Russert: But you will not campaign on the Rangel plan?

Russert: Thank you, Brian. Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

Russert asked the same questions that would be asked of any other candidate.

That's what the Clinton Machine calls a "character attack."

Come to think of it, that's about as accurate as everything else related to her campaign.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Blitzer warned not to 'pull a Russert' on Hillary

 
Drudge reports:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' [a] top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate [the Democratic] debate from Vegas...

Jonah Goldberg's reaction:

First the Clinton campaign whines that the other candidates were picking on the girl. Then, standing up to Russert is like standing up to Hitler. Then Bill Clinton compared Russert to the Swift Boat Vets. Now the Clinton campaign is warning Wolf Blitzer that he better not "pull a Russert."

Again, can someone please explain to me, how asking the junior Senator from New York state whether she agrees with the governor of the state (and a close political ally) on the question of drivers licenses for illegals is even remotely wrong, never mind some sort of vicious, Nazi-like, personal assault on truth, decency, and Hillary Clinton's integrity? I really, really, don't get it.

Of course the Clintons object to the notion that they should have to answer tough questions. Remember, the mainstream media is supposed to be on their side.

Hat tip: Flopping Aces

Sunday, November 11, 2007

"I'm not just running a campaign... I'm having a conversation."

 
Scene: Hillary Rodham Clinton Town Hall meeting - Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Next question, please. That distinguished gray-bearded gentleman over there.

As an older person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming on my children and grandchildren. How does your plan combat climate change?

Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming. But I'm really glad you asked this question. Our energy policy is dedicated to pragmatic steps to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. We'll invest your tax dollars in trying to find new forms of energy, we'll tax all emissions -- harmful or not, and we'll establish a Department of Proper Tire Inflation to enforce new rules requiring folks to have their tires inflated to the correct pressure.

(Applause)

Thank you. Next question? Oh, that man with the black mustache, please. Yes, sir?

Yes, thanks for calling on me. I want to know how you are standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

Our message to the president is clear. The time to begin to end the war is today. I have a three-step plan to bring our troops home, bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a crack diplomatic squad that will help ensure Iraq's future. Details of this plan will be available shortly after I take office.

(Applause)

Okay, next? Oh, the blonde with the glasses. Your question, ma'am --er-- -- --s-sir?

Ah jes' wannet te ask about th' lack o' respec' in this country what with all the crazy crackas usin' bad language lahk the N-wood an' such, so I jes' wannet t' fine out if ya'll raise the level o' discourse in this here country and what not?

Well put, blondie. Americans have had it up to here with fakes. Fakes like Imus and Dog the Bounty Hunter who pretend to be inclusive but -- when push comes to shove -- practice a policy of racism and exclusion. If I'm elected president, we will practice a policy of inclusion, embracing all Americans -- and we won't tolerate any neo-cons, evangelicals, and other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy who may try to stop us!

Well... I'm sorry, that's all the time for questions that we have -- but I wanted to thank you for this interactive session. This is exactly what I meant by having a conversation with America!

More sock-puppet reading: Blue Crab Boulevard*, Carl Cameron, Don Surber*, Fox News, GM Roper*, Jammie Wearing Fool*, Newsbusters, New York Post (* = linked to this story - thanks!)

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Special Comment: Olbermann owes us an apology

 
Keith Olbermann owes this country an apology.

It will not be offered, of course.

He does not realize its necessity.

There are now none around him who would tell him or could.

An apology is this pundit's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence from a clear majority of viewers.

Not confidence in his "special comments" nor his narrow focus on his vision of the president's singular evil nor even that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Bill O'Reilly.

In a larger sense, this pundit needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what defense of this country represents -- of what it must do if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but terrorist sympathizers disguised as journalists.

Because it is evident now that this pseudo-journalist intends to be a contractor for an extremist ideology that more closely resembles an oppressive statist form of government than a religion.

The so-called newsman revealed this last Friday -- and every weekday, it seems, as he fairly spits through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who occupies the highest office in the land. Without respect, without moral standards, and without the common sense God granted a sponge, this faux journalist preaches of a "lost freedom" for which he can point to not a single incident.

That the man who compared the U.S. military to terrorist murderers and who advertises the falsehood of moral equivalence with every breath, that this man still has a job despite his appalling ratings is testament to an MSNBC management team that couldn't organize a bake sale.

With increasing rage, he and this management team have repeatedly told us that America is a fascist country, their demented disagreements so completely at odds with every form of legitimate, rational opposition that they are unique in the annals of American journalism.

It now shows us a frightened little man who has decided that a commanders-in-chief may have the right to pop a cap into Osama bin Ladin -- but he may never, ever, ever wiretap the man should he call into the United States.

This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. Demi-Journalist.

Between your misguided confidence in your infallibility -- despite never providing a day of service to your country nor ever possessing a scrap of classified intelligence -- and your rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a newsman coming unglued in prime time - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees.

There needs to be a delegation of responsible individuals -- from the U.S. military or intelligence communities -- who can sit you down and explain the reality of the situation in which we live.

There needs to be an apology to the President of the United States.

And more than one.

Apologize, sir, for even hinting that the American military -- the same military that protects your crumb-laden pie-hole -- is equivalent to those who would blow-torch prisoners, winch their skulls into shards, and shred children with ball bearings.

Anything else, "Mister" Olbermann, is truly unacceptable.