dana milbank: Page 1
A new and almost entirely worthless controversy involves Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina tweeting a comment about chimichangas. No, really. But, it's not entirely worthless: I'll tell you below some of the things you won't hear from either side.
In case you haven't been following along, see  for a recap. Some notes:
[IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW]
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post offers "Headless bodies and other immigration tall tales in Arizona" (link) in which he misleads about some aspects of immigration crime in that state, even if he gets some things right. He also helps reveal problems that supporters of Arizona's new immigration law have; more on that below. And, of course, he illustrates again just how much disdain the Beltway establishment has for the concerns of those in border states.
I'll stipulate that Milbank is probably correct about Jan Brewer's claims about decapitations, however he cranks it up a notch by sarcastically asking whether "dark-skinned foreigners are now severing the heads of fair-haired Americans" when in fact many victims of crimes committed by smugglers would be "dark-skinned foreigners"; Milbank doesn't have much concern for the victims of such crimes, regardless of their skin color.
Border violence on the rise? Phoenix becoming the world's No. 2 kidnapping capital? Illegal immigrants responsible for most police killings? The majority of those crossing the border are drug mules? All wrong.
The first has already been discussed here; see that for how Milbank is misleading his readers. His claim that the second is wrong is based on an article by the non-credible Politifact ; they made their decision based not on statistics but on the fact that there's either an absence of statistics or not all kidnappings are reported. The last two he's probably correct on.
Then, Dana Milbank shows what little respect he has for immigration enforcement and immigration laws in general:
This matters, because it means the entire premise of the Arizona immigration law is a fallacy. Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence. The scary claims of violence, in turn, explain why the American public supports the Arizona crackdown.
Whatever unspecified Arizona officials have said, there are plenty more reasons to reduce illegal immigration than simply border violence. There's also the fact that the Obama administration has in effect ceded control of part our territory to foreign criminals. And, even Milbank mentions the possibility that violent crime will spill over from Mexico into the U.S.; that's already happened in several instances but apparently he wants to wait until it gets worse and much harder to deal with before taking action. There's also the fact that Border Patrol agents have been discovered to have been in the pay of foreign criminals and the strong probability that local officials have also been compromised. And, of course, there's the impact of massive illegal immigration on our own high unemployment and the large amount of spending involved. Milbank delusionally thinks that if Arizona officials portrayed the border area in his corrupt, naive way then support for the law would drop.
Regarding the "mules" claim, Milbank says:
The Border Patrol's Tucson Sector has apprehended more than 170,000 undocumented immigrants since Oct. 1, but only about 1,100 drug prosecutions have been filed in Arizona in that time.
Shouldn't anyone who pretends to know anything about this issue realize that prosecutions don't necessarily reflect the number of actual crimes? See, for instance, this from March:
Two years ago, an understaffed U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson would have likely declined such a case - the office had a 500-pound threshold for marijuana cases... Not anymore - the threshold is history... Thanks to an influx of funds from the Justice Department's initiative to fight border-related crime, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson has nearly double the prosecutors it had three years ago. The office is prosecuting drug cases at a record clip - and going after people with smaller loads... The U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson prosecuted 1,298 felony drug cases in 2009 - more than double the 521 prosecuted in 2008...
Even if "the threshold is history" there are only so many cases they can prosecute; if they had more funds they could no doubt increase it well above the 1,298. That doesn't mean that all illegal aliens are being used as "mules", just that Milbank is pawning off a misleading statistic.
The Milbank column, unfortunately, illustrates two major problems that supporters of the Arizona law have:
1. Those like Brewer need to bear in mind that everything they say will be picked apart by massive/illegal immigration supporters like Milbank and dozens of others who have a megaphone. They need to be very careful to only make statements that they can back up.
2. Many supporters of the law have donated to Arizona's legal defense fund, and some of the tea parties types have signed petitions in support of Arizona and so on. However, that's not enough. Things like the supposed low crime rates along the border are propaganda that those like Milbank use, yet few besides me are trying to strike against that propaganda and I didn't get any help that I know of with my discussion of the Associated Press article. If I had - if those trained in statistics had shown how the AP article is wrong - we might have prevented it being used not just by those like Milbank but also by Barack Obama. Simply standing around waving signs or signing petitions isn't enough: people also need to intellectually engage the other side and show how they're wrong. Unfortunately, the loudest opposition to the other side - the tea partiers and rightwing bloggers - are generally incapable of doing that.
UPDATE: So much for Milbank's conceit (link). Congressman Rob Bishop has confirmed that a beheading victim was found on an Arizona ranch in January and turned over to the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. One of Milbank's sources is the Arizona Guardian (link), the same source that earlier smeared Brewer over a misconstrued quote. They claim to have contacted the coroner in Santa Cruz County and claim to have been told that no such cases had been handled there. Please contact Milbank using this form with the link to the Examiner article and suggest that he be intellectually honest enough to look into this matter.
UPDATE 2: There's another anecdotal case linked from here. Other anecdotal cases are linked from here, and that site also points out that the Arizona Guardian only claims to have asked about "immigration-related" cases and not those related to drugs. Would the Guardian - which smeared Brewer as linked above - stoop even lower and deliberately only ask about one set of data when the other is equally important? If anyone calls the same counties in Arizona and has conflicting information please leave a comment.
When pressed to indicate if decapitated bodies had been found in Arizona, Senseman continued: "[Brewer is] referring, in general, to the increasing violence across the border."
Meanwhile, officials at six medical examiners' offices in Arizona -- Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Pinal and Maricopa -- confirmed that they had no records of decapitated bodies.
...[In the case in the first update above, the rancher] notified officials at the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office, who went to the ranch and took possession of the head.
Dr. Bruce Parks, who serves as the chief medical examiner for Pima and Santa Cruz counties, confirmed to FoxNews.com that the head was identified through DNA testing as that of 43-year-old Francisco Fuentes Dominguez, who was not a U.S. citizen. Parks said a cause of death was not determined, but there was no evidence of decapitation. Other "badly decomposed" parts of Dominguez's body were found nearby earlier in the year, he said.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post offers "President Alien, and Other Tales From the Fringe" (link), about a press conference held by Philip Berg following the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Donofrio case which claimed that Barack Obama is a dual citizen and ineligible for the presidency.
And, it's not a big surprise that Milbank lied. Discussing statements made by Berg, he says:
Uh, and what about that birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu, a fact confirmed by the Hawaii Health Department and validated by independent groups?
The state of Hawaii never confirmed where Obama was born, they only said his certificate was on file. The only independent group that has "validated" the web photo of Obama's COLB is FactCheck, and since they're spreading the same lie as Milbank (cached copy here), they're as credible as he is. Which is to say, not very credible at all.
In cooperation with the Palin campaign, [the Secret Service has] started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd.
As could be expected, various "liberal" sites rushed to retransmit Milbank's claim; for instance it got almost 1000 comments at the HuffPost (huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/secret-service-blocking-r_n_135336.html).
However, the Secret Service denies that there's such cooperation (link), pointing out that members of the press are isolated as a matter of course.
And, Milbank was one of the originators of the "McCain's angry mob" meme, when on the 6th he claimed that an audience member at a Clearwater, Florida rally had shouted "kill him" (second link above). Although Milbank later pointed out that the remark had been made in relation to William Ayers - and as shown by a correct reading of his post - many others played dumb and assumed that the remark had been made about Barack Obama. If Milbank hadn't wanted to give the wrong impression or help start a meme he would have written the article in a different fashion.
Now, it turns out that the remark might have been made, or it might have been "tell him" instead (link). That's less clear-cut than the lie about the Secret Service, but based on the article's overall attempt to smear Sarah Palin and her supporters, it's certainly not impossible that Milbank simply made it up. Note also that there were two alleged instances of "kill him"; the second occurred in Scranton PA and didn't involve Milbank; the Secret Service has been unable to find any evidence that anything like that was shouted in Scranton (link).
Discussing a speech today in Florida ("In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience Boos Obama", link), he first downplays Barack Obama's links to Bill Ayers ("[m]any independent observers say Palin's allegations are a stretch; Obama served on a Chicago charitable board with Ayers, now an education professor, and has condemned his past activities"). Then:
"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.1. There's no indication that Palin heard the "one man in the audience". Even if she did, she can't be responsible for what others shout out. Milbank doesn't say whether she heard him, leaving that up to the reader's fevered imagination.
"Boooo!" said the crowd.
"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.
"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.
"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.
Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago." Here, Palin began to connect the dots...
2. Milbank is trying to portray Palin's audience as composed of yahoos, when similar call and response happens at most political rallies, especially those conducted by Obama.
3. Milbank almost certainly knew that some people would think that the "one man in the audience" was referring to Obama, causing some to smear the GOP, Palin supporters, and any other Obama opponents and also introducing an even more vile component to the campaign than both campaigns - but especially Obama's - have done so far.
The last point is bolstered by at least two widely-read "liberals" intentionally or unintentionally taking the comment in that sense. Josh Micah Marshall pretends he doesn't know who the shout was referring to ("Who They Are, What They're About", talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/222324.php, discussed in a demagogic way at http://www.patterico.com/2008/10/06/josh-marshall-is-a-liar), as does Jeralyn Merritt ('Palin Ignores Supporter Who Yells "Kill Him" After She Insults Obama', talkleft.com/story/2008/10/6/22537/3821).
UPDATE: Milbank's despicable smear spreads to the HuffPost, with Jeffrey Feldman saying "McCain Campaign Amplifies Violent Rhetoric, GOP Crowds Threaten Obama's Life" (huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/is-palin-trying-to-incite_b_132534.html) and Nico Pitney and Seth Colter Walls offering 'Obama Hatred On Display Again At Palin Rally, Supporter Screams "Treason!"' (huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/obama-hatred-on-display-a_n_132572.html). Both reference Milbank's article.
UPDATE 2: Another Milbank reference hits Daily Kos' front page, this from "BarbinMD" at dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/12422/0539/654/622785
UPDATE 3: There's a discussion of Milbank's smear here including a round-up of others who took his smear and ran with it. That also discusses two other MSM reports from the same rally that described a much more placid event than Milbank's invention.
Scott Shane of the New York Times offers "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths" (originally titled "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"). If you believe the NYT, then everything's fine and dandy, and Barack Obama and 60s radical Bill Ayers are not close. The fact that they aren't close and never were close and nothing funny went on and there's nothing to see here is especially important because Ayers is a former and allegedly unrepentant terrorist who's since been, in Shane's words, "rehabilitated".
On the other hand, if you actually want the truth, compare the second paragraph on page 2 ("In fact, according to several people involved...") to the email here. Why, it's almost like Shane is reading from a script provided by Ken Rolling, the former executive director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
See also this from Steve Diamond:
an exchange of letters in late 1994, copies of which I obtained from Brown University, between Vartan Gregorian, then President of Brown and the individual responsible for assessing applications for grants from the national Annenberg Challenge, and Bill Ayers, the founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, demonstrates that Ayers played a direct role in "composing" the Challenge's board of directors... I was interviewed at length by the New York Times for today’s story. In fact, this was the third Times reporter to interview me about the Ayers/Obama relationship - and I provided the Times with the letters I discuss here. They are not mentioned in the story at all.
See also "Ayers Was on Woods Fund Board with Obama When He Stepped on Flag" (LGF, peekURL.com/zab252h). That links to this August 2001 Chicago Magazine article entitled "No Regrets"; it includes a picture of Bill Ayers stepping on a U.S. flag. It also links to 'Obama served on a board with former Weather Underground member William Ayers and "that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11"', a fact check of a Hillary Clinton statement about Obama's association with Ayers (link). They agree that her statement was truthful.
And, see this:
It turns out as these ten key points confirm what I have argued all along - that Bill Ayers was responsible for the elevation of Obama to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board and the New York Times reporting on this story actually supports my conclusion, though inadvertently.
10/9/08: Obama lies again, with this being the latest explanation for his actions: "The gentleman in question, Bill Ayers, is a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois... That's how i met him -- working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and very close friend of Ronald Reagan's" along with "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders... Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated." (link) As indicated above, Obama continued working with him after 9/11/01, when even the most willingly blind person could see what Ayers was all about.
~ Who's helping the NYT spread their spin? ~
The people listed below all share one thing in common: they pretend that that NYT was actually trying to write an investigative report rather than a cover-up, and they all come to the conclusion that there's nothing there because the NYT says there's nothing there. Whether they actually believe that or whether they're just trying to sell the NYT's lies isn't clear.
* Steve Benen of Washington Monthly says the NYT "couldn't find any dirt", trying to make his readers think the NYT was looking for dirt rather than covering for BHO (washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2008_10/015024.php). A comment I left was later deleted.
* Ben Smith from The Politico tries a similar technique: "though the Times has pinned down a couple of new details on the relationship, there's no real news, and the main new detail is exculpatory: A different Chicago figure picked Obama to chair an education fund. The conservative blog reaction to the story is outrage, as it has failed to turn up the secret Rosetta Stone that many seem to believe will reveal some deeper truth about Obama's politics." (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Republicans_again_reading_the_Times.html?showall)
* Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post (voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/04/palin_turns_to_nyt_citing_arti.html). She starts out with snark and a lie: "It turns out GOP vice presidential nominee does like the mainstream media after all -- at least, when it's publishing unflattering stories about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama." The NYT article isn't "unflattering", it's an attempt at a cover-up.
She then spins the story the same way the BHO campaign does: "In fact, both a Washington Post article in April and today's New York Times piece revealed Obama and Ayers to have had only a casual association: the former radical hosted a coffee for Obama's first bid for state Senate, they served together on an educational charity board and both live in Chicago's Hyde Park."
The WaPo article she mentions is "Former '60s Radical Is Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago" by Peter Slevin (link). That WaPo article is even more of a cover-up than the one from the NYT; in fact, almost everything in there tries to portray Ayers as an upstanding member of his community, and the only link to Obama is this cozy scene: The two men served for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group. The board, which Obama has since left, was small and collegial, said chair Laura Washington, who served with them. It met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants, she said. The atmosphere was "friendly but businesslike." Needless to say, a real reporter would try to determine what Washington isn't saying, but that leaves Peter Slevin out.
* Michael Shaw of the Huffington Post - who concentrates on a lightweight interpretation of images - basically reads from the card he's been handed: "all kinds of long hashed-over and discredited innuendos... resuscitating feeble allegations -- all then discounted..." (huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-emny_b_131855.html)
* Martina Stewart of CNN references the NYT article and then says: "Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship." (says) However, an earlier version of the article - the change not noted - had "The National Review" in place of "The New Republic". (link) Presumably that was just a mistake and not (like their other coverage) an attempt to deceive.
* Sockpuppets, various. BHO supporters are clogging up MSM comments boards with Winner-style attacks. See, for instance, the 04:15 PM comment from "John" and the 04:26 PM comment from "Larry" at latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palinbill.html and the 8:06 PM comment from Luke2 and the 7:34 PM comment from seemstome at voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/04/palin_turns_to_nyt_citing_arti.html. If I didn't think they were just citizens voicing their opinions I'd think they were actually paid workers for the Obama campaign.
* Izvestia, aka CNN, offers a "Fact Check" that discusses Sarah Palin's comment that BHO is "palling around with terrorists" (link). Obviously, Palin should have put it in the correct legalistic format: "in the recent past, Barack Obama has worked with and associated with known and unrepentant terrorists". If she had, CNN wouldn't have been able to pretend that her non-legalistic formation was binding: 'Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.' No really: they actually try to pretend that her imprecise wording is more important than BHO's past collaboration with and association with a terrorist.
* Todd Beeton links to both CNN and the NYT and continues the trends discussed above: mydd.com/story/2008/10/5/164214/299
* Obsequious toady, repeat liar, and supporter of illegal activity Joe Klein offers "Embarracuda", an obvious attempt to deceive (time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/embarracuda.html). Needless to say, he downplays the Obama-Ayers connection and even works in a BHO talking point about how BHO was just a child when the Weather Underground were terrorizing the U.S.: Over the weekend, [Sarah Palin] picked up on an article in The New York Times, which essentially says that Barack Obama and the former terrorist Bill Ayers have crossed paths in Chicago, served on a couple of charitable boards together, but aren't particularly close. To Palin--or her scriptwriters--this means that Obama has been "palling around" with terrorists. Now, I wish Ayers had done some serious jail time; he certainly needed to pay some penance for his youthful criminality--even if most people in Chicago, including the mayor, have decided that he has something of value to say about education. But I can also understand how Obama, who was a child when Ayers was cutting his idiot swath, would not quite understand the enormity of the professor's background...
* Scott Conroy of CBS News offers "Lagging In The Polls, Palin Shifts To Fear Tactics" (cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4503812.shtml), which follows 10/4's equally biased "Palin Says She Wants To Talk About Issues, Adds That Obama Pals With A Terrorist" (cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4503812.shtml). In the first article he says: '[Palin] said [Obama and Ayers] had a relationship akin to being "pals," even though the Associated Press and many other news outlets have concluded that Obama and Ayers' relationship added up to far less than a close friendship.' Needless to say, that's extremely disingenuous.
10/6/08 UPDATE: The latest lie from the BHO campaign is that BHO had little knowledge of the radical past of Ayers and the Weatherman group. This was presented by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (thepage.time.com/mccain-campaign-release-on-obama-and-ayers); see Joe Klein retailing their lie above.
He discusses a meeting yesterday conducted by Cliff Kincaid and attempts to claim that all the points raised were "implausible accusations", such as this:
The smoking gun? Obama's "mentor" during his teens, according to Kincaid, was "a key member of a Soviet-controlled network that was sponsored by Moscow and active in Hawaii."Now, read the Kincaid article on that mentor:
These accusations fall somewhere between guilt by association and guilt by invention, but the accusers were just getting started.
through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."Some of the claims made at the meeting might indeed be out there, but that one certainly isn't. Milbank is simply a hack who can't even use a search engine to verify claims and instead thinks mockery - rather than real journalism - will carry the day. At the WaPo he's right, but not elsewhere.
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
The Washington Post doesn't appear to be sore losers about the failure of immigration "reform". They recently published a vile column from Harold Meyerson and a similar editorial. Now comes Dana Milbank with "Hasta La Vista" (link) about Rep. Tom Tancredo dropping his presidential bid. The problems start with the title, a childish attempt at irony. The running theme throughout is that Tancredo is angry; in fact he uses that word four times. Why is he an "angry man"?
We know this because he has proposed dropping bombs on Mecca. We know this because he sang "Dixie" at a South Carolina gathering full of Confederate flags and white supremacists. And we know this because he wants to expel 12 million people now living in the United States.
The first sentence was only the ultimate response to nukes having gone off in several U.S. cities. The second is discussed here and here. The third might imply that he supports mass deportations, when in fact he doesn't. Milbank then goes on to mock the fact that there were only 18 supporters when he made his announcement. Then:
In response to questions, he admitted he was pulling out to help defeat somebody he dislikes more than an undocumented Mexican in the desert: former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the new Republican front-runner here with what Tancredo called an "abysmal" record of "inviting" illegal immigrants.
I don't think Tancredo would actually "dislike" someone who's trying to cross the desert into the U.S., he just doesn't want them to do it. On the other hand, the Washington Post's support for illegal immigration plays a part in encouraging people to try to cross the desert, despite the fact that thousands have died while trying. And, of course, Huck has promoted and enabled illegal immigration such as by helping Mexico to build a consulate in his state. Then, it's on to a lie:
Never mind that Huckabee was tough enough on immigration to win the support of the border-vigilante Minuteman Project.
The support only came from Jim Gilchrist himself, not any groups using that name. After discussing an admittedly stupid video that Tancredo released (youtube.com/watch?v=n5GUCQAdlxg), it's Milbank's turn to admit why he's the one who's angry:
"It's beyond anybody's wildest expectations that we have been able to, with the help of America, really, get our national leaders to pay attention to the issue," declared Candidate Two Percent... He boasted, with some validity, that his candidacy helped lead "nearly every Republican presidential candidate to commit themselves to an immigration plan that calls for securing our borders." It's true: As his rivals coopted his nativist positions -- even if just rhetorically -- Tancredo became a victim of his own success.
UPDATE: The technicalities of the Gilchrist endorsement are described here:
it is important to note that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), the nation's largest Minuteman organization, is a 501(C)4 non-profit organization and cannot and does not endorse any candidate for public office. MCDC is not associated with Mr. Jim Gilchrist, who today endorsed Mike Huckabee for president. Jim Gilchrist's erstwhile Minuteman Project is itself an organization which by its own representations as a non-profit civic group cannot legally endorse candidates. It does not have any volunteers who observe illegal border activity. It has no border fence building projects. Jim Gilchrist here speaks only for Jim Gilchrist, he does not speak for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, nor is he nationally representative of most patriots in the "Minuteman movement" – who under no circumstances could ignore the failed record nor endorse the duplicitous "plan" recently rolled out by candidate Mike Huckabee. The national media needs to recognize that Jim Gilchrist's endorsement is his own personal statement, nothing more.
Guess the candidate (Bush appealed to Hispanics using Mexican flag, omitted guest worker plan from English-language side of site) - 09/25/04
On the [CANDIDATE'S] campaign's Spanish-language Web site, prominent display is given to a translation of [THE CANDIDATE'S] Jan. 7 speech proposing an immigration plan involving "guest workers." But the speech was mysteriously missing from the [CANDIDATE'S] campaign's English-language Web site, which includes almost every speech [THE CANDIDATE] gives.The CANDIDATE in question is, of course, President Bush. One has to wonder about the mindset of people who think not pointing to English-only pages is a good thing.
...[and,] on the Spanish-language site the Mexican flag was displayed prominently in the main photograph.
A [CANDIDATE] campaign official said last week that missing immigration speech was "a complete oversight" -- and quickly posted the Jan. 7 speech on the English Web site. The Mexican flag remains on the Spanish-language site. A [CANDIDATE] spokeswoman also pointed out that [OPPOSING CANDIDATE'S] Spanish-language Web site has numerous Spanish sections -- such as Contribuya al DNC and Sea Voluntario that link to English-only pages.
As pointed out by Milbank, this discrepancy was first pointed out by ProjectUSA in the article "Divided USA, divided GOP, divided Bush-Cheney website".
Milbank quotes the following from ProjectUSA's article:
"[Bush is] dividing the nation's voters into two groups and appealing to one under the flag of some other nation."UPDATE: A commentator says Dana is a he, not a she as I originally pronoun'ed above. Assuming that's correct, I changed "she" to "he."