What do al-Qaeda and the GOP have in common? They both see pro-Obama bias in the MSM
November 26th, 2008 at 03:49pm Pat Cunningham
Â
More than a few wingnuts are going to become very confused about THIS.
On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, they’re going to have to choose between Barack Obama and Ayman al-Zawahiri (above).
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
10 Comments Add your own
1. Steve | November 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
According to the Pew Research Center Project For Excellence in Journalism these were the coverage percentages during the presidential coverage of MSNBC.
MSNBC has 10/73 pos/neg coverage of McCain
MSNBC has 43/14 pos/neg coverage of Obama
MSNBC Tone of McCain coverage -
Positive - 10%
Neutral - 17%
Negative - 73%
MSNBC Tone of Obama coverage -
Positive - 43%
Neutral - 43%
Negative - 14%
-You are right, there was no bias at all.
Not to mention Olbermann and Matthews had to be separated like dogs with cold water during their coverage of Obama. They do not have any credibility left as journalists, not that they had any to begin with. At least Sean Hannity admits he has an “opinion” show and does not try to market it as the news. Do you seriously think the political party who has actually fought terrorism would support the views of Al-Qaeda over another American? I will not do what the far-left did to Pres. Bush. I will not wear a “He’s not my president” t-shirt, nor will I say the election was fixed. I am also sure that Pres.-elect Obama will not find a ransacked and looted White House like the Clinton’s left Pres. Bush. P.E. Obama won the election and he is the president of ALL Americans. I wish him luck and I hope he is successful in foreign and domestic matters. I just wish the agent of “change” did not recycle so many Clintonistas. I know that liberals like to market the average McCain supporter as racist, but I must remind you that the Republican party was the party of Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army. Look at all of the black politicians during reconstruction. How many were Democrats? None. The Democrats were the party of the confederacy and instituted the “Jim Crow laws.” They also halted any equality that the former slaves would have enjoyed after reconstruction. It is too bad that facts and history get in the way of the argument that all Republicans are “racist.” Did you ever think that difference in ideology and policy could have been the factor people voted differently and not race? P.E. Obama was the only person to mention race during the campaign.
2. Ross Calloway | November 27th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
And do you know what Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common?
They both know someone who bombed the Pentagon.
3. Pat Cunningham | November 28th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Ross just heard that joke, three months after everybody else heard it, and he thinks it’s true. Poor Ross. What a ninny.
4. David Barrett | November 28th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Ross,
You state the fact the Obama ‘knows’ Ayers as though that were important for some reason. Most people involved in education in Chicago ‘know’ Ayers in the same way that Obama does. In fact, because of all the attention in the media all of us ‘know’ Ayers. I am baffled at what significance you see in Obama’s knowledge of Ayers.
5. Pat Cunningham | November 28th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Steve reminds us that “the Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln” — the key word being “was.” But he ignores the fact that the Republican Party is now the party of the South, Republicans having replaced the Dixiecrats in the hearts of Southern bigots. Steve seems oblivious to the fact that the Republican Party has long since jettisoned its moderate-liberal wing and, come January, will not have a single congressman in all of New England.
6. Steve | November 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Pat, thank you for trying to give me (a historian) and your readers a false history of how things really went down. Also, go ahead and ignore all of the other information I put up there and concentrate on one thing like you did, it really proves that you do not know what you are talking about. Yes, “was” is the key word because Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a Democrat 143 years ago. I would not write Abraham Lincoln “is” the party of Abraham Lincoln because he is dead. The white Democrats or “Dixiecrats” ran the show in the South until the 1960’s, so don’t act like it is ancient history. You also cannot describe a whole region of the country as “bigots.” Remember when a certain politician described a certain part of the country a certain way, and the liberals started crying like a fat kid who dropped his cake. My family are white, live in the South and voted for Obama. Are they racist? Not to mention the fact that you are down-playing the large population of black voters in the Deep South. Have you ever been to Mississippi? I have probably met more racists and bigots in Rockford than anywhere else. With the Scandinavian hegemony of the area for years, Italians were once thought of as “the other.” If Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell ran for President the Republican voters would turn-out in droves. The “Dixiecrats” did not go over to the Republican party because of race issues, like you want to believe. It was because the Democrats started to fall in love with a larger federal government and limiting states rights, not race. The “poverty pimps” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton exploit the black population for votes and make them believe they actually care for them. With more blacks in jail, poverty, and unemployed than ever, what awesome benefits have the Democratic party bestowed on black America lately? The Republicans only freed them from slave-holding Democrats, no big deal, right? The black population of California shot-down proposition 8 like a Zero pilot. I would say that the black population of America is hard-working, church-going and socially conservative, wouldn’t you? If they were able to go to unbiased, non-union controlled schools, they would learn who was really on their side. I don’t know if I would be proud by exploiting a race for their vote like you are. As far as New England is concerned, if they vote in frauds and hacks like Barney Frank, who cares who they vote for or what they think. Congress is not everything, there are many Republican politicians from New England. Where was Mitt Romney from? Oh, that’s right, Massachusetts.
7. David Barrett | November 28th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Steve,
Like a lot of other New England Republicans Mitt Romney no longer holds elective office. Almost all the New England Republican politicians have retired or been turned out of office by the voters. Your mention of Mitt Romney actually proves Pat’s point.
8. Steve | November 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Wow Dave, out of all that information, you picked-up on Mitt Romney? Do you have A.D.D? Let Pat stick up for himself, you are not doing him no favors. Do I need to list the other Republicans from New England? I used him as an example to show that popular Republicans can come from New England. Can you not talk about any of the other commentary? Also, when did New England become the litmus test for America? There are not a lot of Republicans in Chicago, but it is still one of the most politically corrupt wastes of space in America. How about looking at states that are fiscally responsible and can pass a budget, guess who they are ran by? Come on Dave, the way you totally ignored the meat of my argument proves MY point. You DO NOT know the history of the crap you want to believe is true. Try picking up and actually reading a book that was not written by a washed-up terrorist from the 1960’s.
9. Steve | November 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
P.S. You just wrote about Michael Steele, do you need an eye-color chart?
10. Steve | November 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Dave and Pat? Where are your nuggets of wisdom to bestow upon me? Thought so.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed