Now you're getting Wiggy with it
Nope, no bias there.
Well, isn't that interesting. Just another objective journalist doing his job.
Fred complaining about bias is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. Who's the pig?
Ooooh, oooh, ooh. I know this.
Palin is the pit bull, McCain's policies are the pig unless you're talking about whatever it is that WFA puts out. Then Suder is the lipstick, Family Action is the mascara and Glen grothman is the...
No that's not right. Grothman is the mascara, Suder is kind of a glossy highlighter with hardly any balm and WFA is the...
Crud. I'll have my people get back to you, Tim
I thought "journalists" were supposed to be objective. Silly me....
You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
The pit bull doesn't ask how to get books banned at the library.
You know the difference between staying on topic and being off topic?
Do you know the difference between truth and libel?
http://www.factcheck.org/
electio...ming_palin.html
55 days boys and girls. I like open comments. Don't make me regret it.
You know the difference between lies and John Foust. I don't know either.
Yes, she asked the head librarian if she would have a problem with being told a book couldn't be in the library and the librarian answered, "Yup". Later Palin Fired the librarian stating she didn't feel she had the librarian's "full support." The librarian was reinstated the next day after public outcry.
Reminds you of the Bridge to Nowhere she supported, then dropped after national outcry... I guess now she could claim she rails against censorship because she reinstated the librarian and dropped the book banning issue.
And while Sarah Palin wasn't a registered member of the AIP, her husband was twice registered as a member.
And speaking of the 'Bridge to Nowhere', she kept the money that was earmarked for it. And her administration spent tens of millions building a road on that island that will lead to the bridge that she is supposedly against. Yeah... real rebellious maverick.
"And speaking of the 'Bridge to Nowhere', she kept the money that was earmarked for it."
Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Do you know how earmarks work? By law, she can't give the money back; only an act of Congress can rescind the money...
So she built a road. That's what governors do. How many roads has Obama budgeted for? Don't worry trying to find the answer, because the answer is zero.
He has no executive experience in making decisions like which roads to build and how much to spend and who to hire to build them.
But then again, his ability to make a decision is questionable anyway - 130+ "present" votes? John Edwards brought it up too. As did his own running mate, Joe Biden.
Based on what I can discern from Obama, if he did send any money for projects back home, I would guess they would go to benefit family or political benfactors.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/20...3/13/20101/
1807
http://
campaignspot.nationalrevi...WFiMTlhYmRhN2Y=
What? What's that you say? He actually DID do that? Oy vey!
Amen, Publis.
@Pub (and I apologize for continuing the threadjacking)
The difference of course is that Obama has not stood at a podium and said that earmarks are corrupt and that he would fight to do away with them. It's seldom the act that's the sticking part but it's often the candidate's cover-up.
Palin hasn't stood up and said, "That's what Governors get paid to do." She's said that, not only did she not take them but that those who do are corrupt.
Back to the topic. A reporter's job is to objectively state the facts. If WFA was passing out cups of bile then it's the reporters job to be informational about that. It is not and never has been a reporter's job to be "deferential."
Widgerson, don't get fauxrageous with me, I heard you laugh. Besides, I stole the joke from the latest RedState Update. The Factcheck link correctly points out that the list of books was not correct. It also says "The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term." The Alaska media reports Palin asking to ban books three times, then asked for the librarian's resignation.
This business about a list of books is bizarre example of the MSM picking up an inconsequential and wrong item from the web and holding it up as a shining example of controversy. Even on DailyKos, other commenters immediately pointed out the list was completely wrong. It's the old someone is wrong on the Internet, writ large.
As for being on-topic, have I mentioned that I think Haloscan is lame in this regard? You see the comments but not the original post. If I see an interesting comment in your left sidebar, I don't know which post it's connected to, do I?
For those of you who get confused by which topic goes with which comment when looking at the blog page, move your cursor over the comment and the topic will appear next to the cursor. For example, this one will say, "Thread: journalistic venom."
... and then read the headlines and match it up? Geesh, we have to work for it. Is this a new feature or did it always do that? Someone should invent a special spot, oh, let's call it a "link", that would let me click and get to the original post. Or maybe even show the original post along with the comments.
Grumps -
Of course Obama hasn't denounced earmarking, because if he does, he's a hypcrite, if he doesn't, he is on the wrong side of the issue - along with Senator Ted Stevens.
I readily concede that by all appearances, Palin is misrepresenting her gubernatorial stance on earmarks. I do.
However, by Obama harping on the issue, he is bound to get this question: "Senator Obama, you've been critical of Governor Palin's assertion that she said 'thanks, but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere, yet has documented her support for the proposal and really had nothing to do with killing the project, suggesting that she's misrepresenting the facts at best and lying at worst. But you, yourself, supported the measure, even after you had an opportunity to vote to reroute those dollars for Katrina Aid. Do you stand by that vote?"
(I've posed the same question at the ramble and rant)
And I believe - setting aside my partisan proclivities - that that is a legitimate question as it relates to Obama's meme of "change" and his charges against Palin.
In my opinion, Obama is playing roulette with the issue, especially now that the press is tired of being accused of being in the tank. They've already started to ask/probe more thoroughly, and the longer Democrats talk on the issue, the likelier it is that Obama will have to defend his vote to actually send the money to Alaska for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Commenting by HaloScan
