« History of hystery | Main | Are Europeans stupid? »

Are Democrats insane?

It's not often I agree with Thomas Frank, but I do think he makes some good points here.

Now comes the fall culture-war offensive, catching the Democrats by surprise as it always does and spreading panic and desperation among their ranks. As the depth of the Republican breakthrough becomes apparent to Democrats, they launch the same feeble counterattacks that failed them last time, prudishly correcting misleading GOP advertisements and crying for the recess monitor when the other side plays dirty.

And none of this works.

Things would go better for Democrats if they recognized the culture war for what it is: a debased form of class war, a false populism in which an "authentic" America rises up against its would-be masters, an effete bunch of arugula-eaters who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." But a visceral feeling of class conflict is what lies at the core of the whole thing: a righteous grievance against wrongful, pedantic rulers. It is so attractive emotionally that I often wish I could sign up for it myself.

Since the 1970s, and with only a few exceptions, the Democratic response to this endlessly recurring attack has been to regard it as something beneath contempt -- which only reinforces the persecution fantasies at the heart of the culture-war myth. Take GOP vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin, for example, the flag bearer for this year's fall offensive. Like every other culture warrior before her, Mrs. Palin presents herself as a person looked down on and sneered at by the high and the mighty, defined as the liberal elite. Look down on or sneer at Mrs. Palin and you have merely reinforced the story, offered an illustration of what the lady is talking about.

Then he goes on to say a bunch of Thomas Frank-y stuff and I lost interest. But it is curious how Democrats have simply dusted off the old 2004 playbook of late, even though it didn't prove especially helpful in 2004... or in 2000, for that matter... or indeed in any recent presidential election in which the Democratic nominee didn't have sterling Bubba credentials. Wasn't that Einstein's definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

To be fair the GOP also has fallen back on the same old tactics that it has employed ever since Lee Atwater convinced Bush 41 he needed to pretend to like pork rinds in order to defeat Dukakis. That may be no way to run a campaign in an ideal world, but it's hard to argue with its success rate. The only presidential races Republicans have since lost were against Bill Clinton, who's clearly immune from the charges of being an arugula-eating elitist.


When was this piece written? It seems as if it was written last week, at least--before the air began to seep out of the Palin balloon, before she started to be exposed (and just by the evil liberal media) as unqualified, inexperienced, prone to secrecy in her governing style, an ignorer of subpoenas, a liar, isolated by the campaign hierarachy--in some respects, Cheney with a vagina.

>--in some respects, Cheney with a vagina.

And yet some still insist she's unqualified for VP!

OK, my bad. She's Phyllis Schlafly with a vagina.

That's better.

I watched The Bill Maher show the other day and according to the sole Republican on the panel, while Harriet Miers wasn't qualified, Palin is way qualified. So you all need to stop picking on Palin, you sexists!

How am I supposed to believe she really is ready from day 1 when they don't even seem to trust that she can do an interview? Wait, that's unfair, she did do the Gibson interview (where he was so mean to her, sexist pig that he is) and then sat down for a harrowing interview with the very scary Sean Hannity.

Crying sexism in the face of questions is so very wrong, I can't even deal. What? Her feminine sensibilities will wilt in the face of opposition? So are we supposed to believe that she will be a vp in the mold of Gore or Cheney? Or is it that she's ready from day 1 to be vp in the mold of Ford or Mondale? Because that, I buy.

What we're seeing now is a balkanization of the media....Conservatives have long rightly derided the MSM (ABC, CBS, NBC the NY Times, WaPo, etc) as way too Left-of-Center and that's one of the reasons why the NY Times circulation is one third what it once was and why the MSM is today far less vital than it once was.

It's not at all unusual (highly partisan and ideologically bigoted, but NOT unusual) for Liberals to want their old monopoly on the media back...but it isn't coming back.

There are too many new information sources and too many people who outrightly reject the left-of-Center MSM today.

MSNBC recently demoted Olbermann and Mathews (Olby should be fired...he's an embarassment to that company - it's good to see that both Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw reportedly slammed Olbermann to parent-company GE a few weeks ago), but it, like much of the old-styled MSM is not only partisan but is peopled with Democratic hacks - chiefs of staffs of failed Dem politicos, etc.

Insanely enough Liberals complain about FoxNews and Talk Radio!

Are you kidding me?!

FoxNews has a ONE Republican-Conservative commentator (Sean Hannity), balanced off by a Left-leaning one (Alan Combs) and one Independent- tradititionalist (Bill O'Reilly)....the rest of their programming is straight news that's indistinguishable from CNN or CBS except for its glitz, general lack of editorializing....and ratings.

Olbermann is NOT a commentator, he's a shill...for exactly what....I'm not sure, but his commentary is amateurish, overly-theatrical and not even loosely fact-based. He's an embarassment to the NBC organization. Most of the other commentators on Cable news are Left-of-Center with the exception of CNN Headline News' host Glenn Beck, who's pretty much a reliable Conservative.

The Sunday morning Talk Shows are all basically commentary shows and with the exception of McGloughlin, they're all reliably Left-leaning, although even McLoughlin's panel is evenly split between Liberals and Conservatives, despite Conservative being a much larger portion of the American public.

Still, COMMENTARY is NOT the problem anywhere!

It's easy to tell commentary (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Mathews, etc.) from the news.

The real problem is that too many news organizations have encouraged commentary to seep into their news rooms.

The NY Times NEWS stories are now reliably 60% or more pure COMMENTARY. Same with most MSM news outlets.

That last fact is almost certainly why so many people have chosen to forego the traditional MSM in favor of other venues.

The Gibson interview of Palin (in which he humiliated himself) was just one example.

Gibson took on a professorial tone with Palin that he hasn't with ANY other guest....in fact, he NEVER wears those dopey glasses down on hsi nose like that.

It was a veritable comedy act, although a highly inappropriate one under the circumstances.

The good thing (to folks like myself) is that it's things like that that serve to alienate even more people from the MSM.

Right now, the Left wants a re-do. They want to forget their wanton, over-the-top and excessive personal attacks on Palin and the American Right over the first ten days after the nomination and now move on to "more substantive issues."

They ain't getting one.

There are no re-dos.

There is no great clamor for MORE government....there is no great clamor for MORE social programs....there is no great clamor for ANY of the Liberal positions because they are a distinct minority opinion within these United States.

And yet the MSM took it upon themselves to slap at the clear majority of Americans who have views that are more Right-of-Center than not.

As Camile Paglia (an Obama supporter) recently said, in the wake of the MSM attacks on Palin, "I don't care what they (the MSM) has to say after this, at this point, I can't believe anything they say."

Tens of millions of Americans have long ago come to that conclusion and more are coming to it every day.

One of the more amusing and funny posts I have read in a long while. Thanks, JMK!

"I watched The Bill Maher show the other day..." (K)

That was your first mistake.

Bill Maher is a half step ahead of Keith Olbermann in the "Who gets to undergo shock therpay first pool"?

I'm laying 5-2 odds on Olby, but Maher is a close second.

"One of the more amusing and funny posts I have read in a long while. Thanks, JMK!" (Fred)

You're welcome, though I KNOW (from past experience) that you "take a backseat to no one in your detesting of Keith Olbermann."

No worries. I don't hate Olbermann at all, myself.

In my view, he WAS a damned fine sportscaster back in the day.

I did lose a lot of respect when I heard him spouting these inane Lefty views and 9/11-Truther conspiracies...things that went against everything he once portrayed himself as to those who knew him.

Oddly enough, support the views I posted above comes from, of all sources, Mark Penn (a former Clinton pollster) who, last Friday, said, "I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

"I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development."


Of course I believe Penn is delusional in thinking that "people once only saw FoxNews as partisan."

That's inane.

The MSM has ALWAYS been highly partisan in their affection for the likes of Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, etc. Hell, back in the day, the MSM virtually campaigned for George McGovern.

Again, it comes down to commentary versus News....I can go through ANY NY Times "news" article and highlight a full 70% of it that is shear commentary in a "NEWS article!"

That's almost certainly why their circulation numbers are so bad now-a-days.

JMK sez: "Again, it comes down to commentary versus News....I can go through ANY NY Times 'news' article and highlight a full 70% of it that is shear commentary in a 'NEWS article!' "

OK, here you go: 2 news articles. Your challenge: highlight the "full 70% of it that is shear (sic) commentary." The first article has almost 1700 words, meaning that you'll need to find about 1190 words that are shear (sic) commentary, while the second has 563 words, meaning you need to find about 400 words of shear (sic) commentary.




Here you go Fred.

I went through the longer of the two articles and (1) enumerated the areas I considered commentary, conjecture, opinion, hyperbole, etc. in italics and (2) explained all the issues I had with those items in BOLD

This article had almost half its content some form of commentary, conjecture, opinion etc.

A NEWS ARTICLE shouldn’t have ANY.

Vast Bailout by U.S. Proposed in Bid to Stem Financial Crisis

NY Times

WASHINGTON — "The head of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve began discussions on Thursday with Congressional leaders on what could become the biggest bailout in United States history.

"While details remain to be worked out, the plan is likely to authorize the government to buy distressed mortgages at deep discounts from banks and other institutions. The proposal could result in the most direct commitment of taxpayer funds so far in the financial crisis that Fed and Treasury officials say is the worst they have ever seen. (here they use an unnamed source (“Fed Treasury officials to offer an opinion (probably the writer’s own…and the current fiscal crisis is far from “the worst ever seen” by anyone – it pales in comparison to the panics of the 1890s and the Great Depression 1929 – 1941)

"Senior aides and lawmakers said the goal was to complete the legislation by the end of next week, when Congress is scheduled to adjourn. The legislation would grant new authority to the administration and require what several officials said would be a substantial appropriation of federal dollars, though no figures were disclosed in the meeting.

"Democrats, having their own desire for a second round of economic aid for struggling Americans, see the administration’s request as a way to win White House approval of new spending to help stimulate the economy in exchange for support for the Treasury request. (pure commentary and whether that opinion is viable or credible does not change the fact that it is OPINION…AND they attempt to be clever by insinuating that the answer to a problem caused by governmental intervention (the reckless behavior of Fannie and Freddie) is MORE government spending)

"Democrats also say they will push for relief for homeowners faced with foreclosure in return for supporting any broad bailout of struggling financial institutions.

“What we are working on now is an approach to deal with systemic risks and stresses in our capital markets,” said Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary. “And we talked about a comprehensive approach that would require legislation to deal with the illiquid assets on financial institutions’ balance sheets,” he added.

"One model for the proposal could be the Resolution Trust Corporation, which bought up and eventually sold hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of real estate in the 1990s from failed savings-and-loan companies. In this case, however, the government is expected to take over only distressed assets, not entire institutions. And it is not clear that a new agency would be created to manage and dispose of the assets, or whether the Federal Reserve or Treasury Department would do so.

"The bailout discussions came on a day when the Federal Reserve poured almost $300 billion into global credit markets and barely put a dent in the level of alarm.

"Hoping to shore up confidence with a show of financial shock and awe, the Federal Reserve stunned investors before dawn on Thursday by announcing a plan to provide $180 billion to financial markets through lending programs operated by the European Central Bank and the central banks of Canada, Japan, Britain and Switzerland. (this entire paragraph is commentary “stunning investors” with “shock and awe” to laud the Feds doing what the NY Times obviously approves of – spending even MORE taxpayer money to fixed problems caused by previous reckless governmental spending)
But after an initial sense of relief swept markets in Asia and Europe, the fear quickly returned. Tensions remained so high (Commentary AND mind-reading at the very same time) that the Federal Reserve had to inject an extra $100 billion, in two waves of $50 billion each, just to keep the benchmark federal funds rate at the Fed’s target of 2 percent.

"None of those actions, however, brought much catharsis or relief, with banks around the world remaining too frightened to lend to each other, much less to their customers. (AGAIN, commentary as there are no facts of less lending activity, merely opinion and conjecture) This forced (again a commentary – THIS ALONE “forced” action by Bernanke OR did a whole host of parameters mandate some further action?...that opening OPINION line poisons all that follows in this paragraph) Mr. Paulson and Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, to think the unthinkable: (“unthinkable?” – OPINION nad not very sound opinion at that, as taxpayer monies have been used in corporate sector bailouts routinely, so it’s NOT “unthinkable”) committing taxpayer money to buy hundreds of billions of dollars in distressed assets from struggling institutions.

"Rumors about the Bush administration’s new stance swept through the stock markets Thursday afternoon. By the end of trading, the Dow Jones industrial average shot up 617 points from its low point in midafternoon, the biggest surge in six years, and ended the day with a gain of 410 points or 3.9 percent.

"The rally continued in early trading in Asia. The Australian market was up 3.5 percent by mid-day there and the Nikkei 225 Index was up 2.9 percent in Tokyo.

“The markets voted, and they liked the proposal,” said Laurence H. Meyer, vice chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers.

"The stock surge began after Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, announced his own proposal for a government rescue on the Senate floor and declared that both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve were open to all ideas. (COMPLETELY superfluous and UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion and commentary...as one could also word this “the surge began shortly after the Bush administration OK’d its bold new agenda”...which of course would ALSO be opinion/commentary but Left-leaning folks like yourself would probably have noticed THAT bit of commentary)

“The Federal Reserve and the Treasury are realizing that we need a more comprehensive solution,” Mr. Schumer said. “I’ve been talking to them about it.” (Peripheral political commentary designed to make a noted Liberal Democrat seem like a likely part of the solution! The fact is that the Fannie mae and Freddie Mac meltdown was central to much of the current crisis and both Fannie and Freddie have been run almost entirely by Liberal Dems (Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson, etc.)

"Still, the evening discussions took most of Washington by surprise, (opinion...based on what?..How was “Washington taken by surprise?) especially since Congress had been trying to finish up its business and head home to campaign for re-election. (They were “taken by surprise” BECAUSE they usually gear up for re-election around this time?! That sounds a LOT like conjecture, which is commentary.)

"The scale and complexity of the project are almost certain to create huge philosophical differences among the parties, which could make negotiations difficult to say the least. (Entirely opinion and commentary by the authors) Still, lawmakers said the goal was to work through the coming weekend and to have both the House and Senate vote on a measure by the end of next week. (Aside from the fact that THIS statement directly contradicts the previous, what “lawmakers”? How where they surprised and yet focused on voting on the measure by the end of THIS week?)

"As they exited the session, grim-faced lawmakers (OPINION, in the form of conjecture and that poisons the rest of the paragraph by steering the reader to feel a certain way about the people in question – were they resolved or overwhelmed – what does “grim-faced” imply???) said they would await proposals from the Treasury Department. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said he expected to see a proposal within hours, not days.

“What we agreed to do is sit down together on a bipartisan basis and work together to solve the problem,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who said no specific approach was advocated by the administration officials. (Again an unchallenged and unexamined quote that self-servingly makes Congress look like the “voice of reason” when much of this meltdown is due to Congressional ineptitude)

"President Bush and his top advisers have adamantly opposed bailouts, but the mortgage crisis has already forced the Treasury and the Fed to bail out four of the country’s most prominent financial institutions — Bear Stearns in March; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier this month; and American International Group, the insurance conglomerate, just this week. (Not just commentary, but poor commentary at that! Bear Stearns was bought out by J P Morgan-Chase on the cheap, it wasn’t “bailed out, so much as “a deal was brokered”)

"Created in 1989, the Resolution Trust Corporation disposed of bad assets held by hundreds of crippled savings institutions. The agency closed or reorganized 747 institutions holding assets of nearly $400 billion. It did so by seizing the assets of troubled savings and loans, then reselling them to bargain-seeking investors.

"By 1995, the S.& L. crisis had abated and the agency was folded into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which Congress created during the Great Depression to regulate banks and protect the accounts of customers when they fail.

"By any reckoning, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke were desperate for a way to stem the crisis once and for all by Thursday evening. (Again, the use of adverbs like “desperate” “hate-filled” “outraged” are all used to make the reader feel a certain way about the people involved and the events – THAT is a commentary technique, wholly inappropriate in a factual news article) Over the previous 10 days, they had allowed one Wall Street firm, Lehman Brothers, to collapse; and an even bigger Wall Street firm, Merrill Lynch, to be sold to Bank of America. Then, on Tuesday, the Federal Reserve abruptly took over the nation’s biggest insurance conglomerate, the American International Group, and began bailing it out with an $85 billion loan.

"The meeting in the Capitol, which began around 7 p.m., came after Congressional leaders had initially appeared unclear about what role they would play in the rapid-fire decisions being made. Leaders of both parties had complained about a lack of hard information flowing from the administration. House Republicans even canceled a closed-door party session Thursday morning after the administration refused to provide an official to brief them on the administration’s emerging policies. (Initially “appeared unclear” to whom? To the NY Times reporters? That’s what’s implied and if so, THAT’S commentary)

"But as Thursday progressed, Congressional leaders sought to reassert themselves on the crisis, scheduling oversight hearings, calling for a legislative response to the market turmoil and offering to put off an adjournment scheduled to start at the end of next week if the administration and Congress could find common ground on a solution.

"Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, in a letter sent Thursday evening to President Bush, reiterated that view. “We stand ready beyond the targeted adjournment date of September 26 to permit Congress to consider legislative proposals and conduct necessary investigations,” Ms. Pelosi said in the letter, which said “the worsening crisis in our financial markets demands strong solutions and decisive leadership.”

"But whether a legislative consensus could be found remained an open question, and members of Mr. Bush’s own party were among those who were most critical of the increasing federal intervention in private markets.

"At the meeting Thursday night, where officials said the atmosphere was tense, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, was notably skeptical. (AGAIN, theses kinds of adverbs are always used to direct the reader to feel a certain way about the event and those involved – that is a commentary technique that is not appropriate for factual articles)

"A spokesman for the senator, Jonathan Graffeo, said later: “Senator Shelby believes it’s his responsibility to be skeptical on behalf of taxpayers. He believes our goal must be to minimize taxpayer exposure while maximizing the benefit to the economy.”

"Earlier in the day, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, had expressed similar wariness about the risk to taxpayers’ funds. And Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who heads a coalition of House conservatives, was circulating a letter to the administration demanding that it not engage in any further bailouts. (When Harry Reid and other Democrats are named they aren’t named as Liberals – which they are, so this too, because of its inconsistency is skewed political commentary)

"Even before the Thursday night session with Mr. Paulson — the second for top Congressional leaders this week — the House had scheduled new oversight hearings. The Financial Services Committee set a session for next week, with Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke as witnesses. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee set hearings for early October to examine developments that led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the bailout of A.I.G., even though Congress is to be in recess.

"Ms. Pelosi, suggesting the public was probably not of a mind to wait until 2009 for a Congressional fix, said lawmakers first had to explore the causes of the problems and potential solutions in hearings. (This amounts to political commentary since Nancy Pelosi is portrayed as a non-participant in this debacle despite the fact that she was one of the two major Congressional leaders who led Congress during the bulk of this debacle, which WAS/IS a crisis created by government, specifically Congressional action – THIS amounts to political commentary in that it portrays Pelosi as part of the solution, when she was actually part of the problem)

“Let’s hear from the Bernankes and the Paulsons and the rest what their view of it is,” she said. “Let’s hear from the private sector. How these captains of the financial world could make millions of dollars in salary, and yet their companies fail and then we have to step in to bail them out.” (Unchallenged political commentary in the form of a quote FROM one of the leaders of Congress during the bulk of the current mortgage/credit crisis)

"Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke have been studying an array of new and sometimes radical approaches to fight what current and former Fed officials describe as the worst financial crisis they have ever seen. (Again, that phrase is hyperbole or commentary. This is a very serious crisis and a failure of the policy of “Credit Socialism” BUT it is thankfully NOT close to being one of “the worst financial crises ever seen by anyone)

"The Fed has already stretched itself very thin by introducing new emergency lending programs for banks, Wall Street firms and, this week, a giant insurance company.

"With the Fed running short of unencumbered reserves, the Treasury Department had begun raising fresh cash for the central bank by selling new Treasury bills at an unprecedented pace — $200 billion this week alone — and parking it at the Fed for whatever use it wanted." (For WHATEVER USE IT WANTED??? What does that EVEN mean?! This more sloppy writing than out and out commentary, but implied here is that there is absolutely no oversight of the Fed – that they can use the money on hand for WHATEVER USE THEY WANT, which is not accurate.)

Carl Hulse and David M.
Herszenhorn contributed reporting.

1696 words total

Appx 818 words of commentary, opinion

48% commentary

But you said 70% 'shear' commentary, so you were just bloviating and chest-thumping yet again. 48% (subject to some debate) is not a full 70%, as you promised you could find in any NYT article.

So you're saying 50% of a NEWS article being opinion and conjecture is perfectly fine with you?

Apparently I'm not as OK with it as you are.

What I don't get at all is the inane calls from Lefties to scale back or even silence Conservative COMMENTARY that's advertised as...COMMENTARY.

There are no listeners/viewers who see the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly as "newscasters," any more than there are readers who see a newspapers OpEd page and think it's straight news.

Commentators are paid to COMMENT on the day's events.

What's even worse than mere "commentary creep" (commentary and conjecture in so-called "news articles) is this kind of outright falsifications by the Left-wing MSM;

Media Caught Fabricating White Racists?

Posted Sep 20, 2008
By Barbara Sowell

A quote attributed to Sandra Cichon, a private citizen, is spreading across the internet as a living example of White Racism. Did a reporter put words in this woman’s mouth?

An article in the St. Petersberg Times, quotes Cichon as having said, “I can't imagine having a black president . . .”

In a phone interview Saturday, Sandra Cichon of Spring Hill, Florida denied that she ever spoke with any pollster or reporter concerning Obama or about anything regarding race. Cichon was taken by surprise when phoned by this reporter, and she was not aware that she had been quoted in any newspaper.

The September 15, 2008 article Black ‘Issue’ Hangs Over Presidential Polls by Adam Smith of the St. Petersburg Times Political states:

A pollster calling Sandra Cichon, a 60-year-old Democrat from Spring Hill, would hear her identify herself as an undecided voter. But is she really?

"I can't imagine having a black president, and I think he's inexperienced," she told a reporter recently, eventually acknowledging she was leaning unenthusiastically toward McCain. "I don't think we (Democrats) have a chance to be in the White House with Obama."

Many analysts wonder how many voters answering polls hide their racial biases or mislead survey-takers about their real preferences.

The article fails to name the pollster who claimed to have called Cichon. When asked during my phone interview, Cichon denied speaking to any pollster on the phone.

Cichon explained that the only time she spoke with a reporter was in August when she went to vote in the county commission races. She said that he (the reporter) seemed nice and she gave him a catalogue for gift baskets.

Cichon is quoted in an August 27, 2008 article in the St. Petersburg Times, Russell, Mitchell, Hackworth win congressional Primaries, by Rita Farlow, Stephanie Garry and John Frank, Times Staff Writers.

Many Democratic voters said they were unimpressed with the quality of the candidates.

"I don't know one from the other," said Sandra Cichon of Spring Hill.

Sandra Cichon shows up in another August 27, 2008 St. Petersburg Times article Dismal Voter Turnout in Hernando by Barbara Behrendt and John Frank. Times staff writer, John Frank, was a reporter on both August 27th articles.

Some Democratic voters said they found the experience largely unsatisfying based on the quality of congressional candidates on their ticket. . . .Sandra Cichon, 60, cast a ballot at Spring Hill United Church of Christ. She left disappointed because she couldn't vote in the hotly contested commission races as a registered Democrat.

"I wouldn't even have come if I knew," she said.

In a phone call to Times Political Editor, Adam Smith, who authored the article in question, Smith said that he had the utmost confidence in the reporter, John Frank. Smith said that Frank was the reporter who actually spoke with Cichon. Smith said it is understandable that Cichon wouldn’t want to admit over the phone to making that statement, but “polls all over are showing that people are not hesitant in stating that they won’t vote for a black person.”

The progressive DoubleTake is the blog for the Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere - Los Angeles. AWARE-LA paraphrases the same September 15, 2008 article, Black ‘Issue’ Hangs Over Presidential Polls by Adam C. Smith. But notice that something has been added to the Cichon quote.

Later in the article Sandra Cichon, a 60-year-old Democrat from Spring Hill, who originally identified herself to a pollster as an undecided voter, recently told a reporter, “I can’t imagine having a black president, and I think he’s inexperienced.”

Sandra then asked the reporter if she would like a fresh batch of “Obama Waffles.”

Sandra Cichon was asked during my interview today if she had asked the reporter if he would like a fresh batch of “Obama Waffles”?

Cichon responded, “Why would I ask a reporter about waffles? This is crazy. I never spoke to any reporter about Obama. I’m going right down to the St. Petersburg Times and demand a retraction!

Times Editor, Adam Smith was asked if he had heard that Cichon had offered the reporter “Obama Waffles?” Smith said he was not aware of that quote.

This seems to back up what I said when the Jason Blair scandal hit the fan - "This is NOT an isolated incident, in fact, it's par for the course and it goes back to Walter Duranty, a 1930s NY Times reporter who fictionalized the news and won a Pulitzer Prize for his creative writing efforts chronicling "Stalin's Worker's Paradise."

That's almost cetainly why more and more Americans are saying what Camile Paglia (a feminist College Professor and avowed Obama supporter) said recently, in regards to the Palin sliming - "Now I can't listen to another word the media says, they've provven I can't trust them. They may tell the truth about something important concerning Palin and I still couldn't believe them."

Post a comment