media matters for america
Media Matters for America
Left-wing "media watchdog" group headed by David Brock and funded with money from George Soros and others. Their overall goal is to stifle debate through the usual "liberal" practice of calling people 'racist" and the like. Their entries frequently have a pompous, faux-academic tone, a tone that the contents of those entries rarely if ever live up to. Some of their entries about anodyne comments from their opponents leave even those on their side scratching their heads wondering what was wrong about the comments that MMFA was shocked - shocked! - by.
Pat Buchanan is now officially off MSNBC; he was basically fired and he didn't quit of his own accord as he makes clear in "Blacklisted, But Not Beaten" (link) .
Reason Magazine offers the deceptive video "The Week in Stupid: Cable Pundits on the Gifford Shooting" (below). If you trust anything Reason tells you, keep reading.
Drop Dobbs: illegal activity-supporting racial power groups and far-left want Lou Dobbs off CNN - 09/17/09
A coalition of illegal immigration-supporting far-left and/or racial power groups has launched a campaign called "Drop Dobbs" to get advertisers to pull their ads from CNN's Lou Dobbs show (dropdobbs.com, mediamatters.org/blog/200909150031): "...The effort aims to let companies know that their continued financial support of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight makes them complicit in the hate speech and wild conspiracy theories that he promotes..."
Campaigns like this - following on the heels of the somewhat successful similar campaign against Glenn Beck - stand a greater chance of success given the fact that Dobbs' ratings aren't as high as they once were. What you can do about this is raise awareness about the groups involved and cut them off from support, both financial and ideological.
For instance, help organize a campaign against bills that would fund the NCLR. Or, do something as simple (but too difficult for some) as leaving comments at blog and news postings by or discussing the groups; those comments should have the goal of discrediting those groups or their supporters.
See the following links to the names of the groups involved for our coverage of each group:
* National Council of La Raza (funds extremists, gave award to someone who'd proposed genocide)
* League of United Latin American Citizens (CA chapter thinks U.S.-Mexico border might be invalid)
* Southern Poverty Law Center (misled about hate crime statistics)
* Media Matters for America
* Frank Sharry
* Reform Immigration for America
* Center for New Community
* Hispanic Institute (see below)
* Dolores Huerta Foundation (promoted demographic hegemony, hatred against Republicans)
* National Hispanic Media Coalition
* National Puerto Rican Coalition
* New Democratic Network
* Netroots Nation (from Dailykos and others)
* Voto Latino
UPDATE: Janet Murguia of the NCLR says, among other things (huffingtonpost.com/janet-murguia/join-nclr-and-the-drop-do_b_290584.html):
For two years, I have tried working behind the scenes with CNN to bring some fairness to the relentless bias of CNN programming due to Dobbs' show... The Drop Dobbs coalition is compiling a list of those advertisers supporting the Lou Dobbs show and will be reaching out to educate them about this issue. We recognize that many advertisers may be unaware that FAIR has been designated as a hate group, so we are contacting those companies before publicly releasing the list. However, unless and until Dobbs and CNN disassociate themselves from this hate group, we will be asking advertisers to withhold their support...
UPDATE 2: See also the similar group "Enough is Enough!". Communications for that are being handled by a DNC official; it would be interesting to know to what extent if any the Obama administration is involved in either group. Could someone (perhaps Judicial Watch) file some FOIA requests?
The Hispanic Institute's board is at thehispanicinstitute.net/about/boardofdirectors. In addition to one board member who was with the National Association of Realtors, another is quite interesting:
Media Matters lies: Hawaii has not authenticated the certificate on Obama's site (Corsi, Dobbs, FAIR) - 09/16/09
Media Matters for America offers a smorgasbord of smears in "At "hate group" event, Dobbs embraces discredited birther Jerome Corsi" (mediamatters.org/research/200909150042, not bylined):
On his radio show -- broadcast from the anti-immigration organization Federation for American Immigration Reform's (FAIR) "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" legislative advocacy event -- Lou Dobbs interviewed WorldNetDaily staff reporter Jerome Corsi, who Dobbs described as "a pretty good guy to talk to" about immigration issues... ...On Fox News, Corsi claimed that Obama's presidential campaign "has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website." In fact, the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that the birth certificate posted online by the Obama campaign is "a valid Hawaii state birth certificate" and has called the speculation about Obama's citizenship "pretty ridiculous." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 8/15/08]
The word "confirmed" links to the Politifact article discussed here (#4) in which Hawaii DOH spokeswoman Janice Okubo says the following about the picture from Obama's site that Poitifact emailed to her: "It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate". That solves that, right? Except, later in the article Politifact offers this completely contradictory Okubo quote:
Alexandra Marks of CSM lies: Hawaiian officials never confirmed the certificate on Obama's site - 08/05/09
Alexandra Marks of the Christian Science Monitor offers "Should CNN attack its own anchor over ‘birther’ flap? /A media watchdog group releases an ad criticizing CNN anchor Lou Dobbs for stoking the 'birther' controversy"  about an ad Media Matters for America is running against Dobbs for him daring to mention the Obama citizenship issue. It includes this:
Officials in Hawaii have confirmed multiple times that the birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign in 2008 is legitimate. Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, has also seen the birth certificate and declared it legitimate.
The problems with that are highly similar to the problems with - surprise! - the problems with the Media Matters page discussed here. As with MMFA, she relies on FactCheck, an organization that isn't very credible.
More importantly, aside from a statement from Janice Okubo that she contradicted on the same page, no Hawaiian official has spoken about the picture of a certification as shown on Obama's site; neither of the statements from Hawaiian Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino said anything about that picture. The first Fukino statement only said Obama had a valid cert on file; the second said he was born in Hawaii and was a natural born citizen.
In other words, Alexandra Marks' "multiple times" never happened; Marks is a liar.
Even Glenn Beck has turned on the "Birthers", saying that he doesn't believe Obama was born in Kenya, that if it came out that he was born there it would result in "civil war", and that "there are other things that you should concentrate on... Who cares about the birth certificate thing? ...What do you say we pay attention to he's appointing Communists..." (The audio is at mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908040011)
Media Matters for America offers the un-bylined "The Definitive Birther Takedown" (mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907280002). A brief glance shows it contains at least one lie and other misleading statements.
Low-level conservative commentator Ed Morrissey of HotAir recently got a special treat: a shout-out from Media Matters for America in their article 'Unlike Dobbs, some conservative media think birthers are "nutburgers"' (by Julie Millican, mediamatters.org/research/200907220051). Rather than criticizing him, they were giving him a cookie for helping "[to] debunk the birth certificate rumors" about Barack Obama, linking to Morrissey's "The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post"  as proof of just how reasonable he was.
Just one problem: the HotAir post they linked to contained a series of updates as Morrissey realized he'd gotten things wrong. And, a couple more updates are necessary since he's still spreading disinformation.
In an attempt to help (of a fashion), I renewed our treasured acquaintanceship by sending him an email detailing what he got wrong. He wrote back that he had no interest in getting into an email debate about "Birther theories".
What he got wrong that time is what he referred to as "Birther theories" is actually clear-as-a-bell Hawaiian state laws, as detailed below.
1. He says:
The State of Hawaii only keeps birth certificates from births in Hawaii.
On the same day he posted that, I pointed out that he's wrong. Those born outside Hawaii can obtain valid Hawaiian birth certificates. The full text of that part of Hawaii's Revised Statutes is at that link, and here's a direct link to it at hawaii.gov. Apparently Ed Morrisey thinks that's a "Birther theory".
2. He says (this part was quoted by MMFA):
The state of Hawaii has repeatedly insisted that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii, as the Certificate of Live Birth states.
That's not only completely false, but he's in effect accusing Hawaiian officials of breaking the law. Here's the direct link to the law on hawaii.gov that forbids disclosure of private records. For Hawaiian officials to "repeatedly insist" that Obama was born there, they'd have to break that law. The fact is that they haven't broken that law, because they haven't "repeatedly insisted" that Obama was born there. Instead, they've simply stated that Obama has a valid certificate on file. That press release references the law at the hawaii.gov link. In fact, the same HotAir page, in "Update IV", quotes the portion of that press release where they say they can't reveal the information because of that law.
Please write Ed Morissey at tips *at* hotair.com and suggest that he tries to do some research before helping MMFA spread disinformation.
MediaMatters, Campaign for America's Future cheer political benefits of declining numbers of whites (Eric Lotke) - 05/27/09
Two George Soros-funded groups - the Campaign for Americas Future and Media Matters for America - have released a report authored by Eric Lotke entitled "America: A Center-Left Nation" (ourfuture.org/report/center-left-nation):
The wind is at our backs. It's safe to push. It's important that we do. We need to channel the energy of our center-left nation, and achieve the promise, not the compromise. The crisis is great, bold action is needed, and the people are hungry for progressive change.
They're very clearly painting a rosy picture of their chances. But, they do have one growing advantage, and it's one that they're cheering on: the declining numbers of whites in the U.S. First, here's what they say in their PDF, and below that is the same excerpt with the races reversed in order to clearly show who we're dealing with:
Low-wattage radio, TV hosts say dumb things about Mexicans and swine flu; leftwing attacks in order to support illegal activity - 04/30/09
Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post offers "Swine Flu A Mexican Immigrant Conspiracy: Conservative Media (VIDEO)" (huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/swine-flu-a-mexican-immig_n_193707.html), linking to a Media Matters for America video apparently containing instances of conservative radio and TV hosts discussing the issue of Mexicans - speci
Irony meets stupidity: Chicago May 1 immigration rally might have gotten more people than all tea parties - 04/17/09
"[T]he grand total of all of the tea party demonstrators" was less than the number "at that immigration rally in 2006 in the city of Chicago alone"
Even if the "parties" got a little more than that, Rivera isn't far off. And, that helps illustrate just how pathetic the entire "tea party" concept is.
And, in my case, it's sadly ironic. Back in February 2007, I went to an Obama appearance hoping to ask him a question about the fact that the very same immigration march - the one where he spoke - was organized by those linked to the Mexican government.
At the end of that post, I said, I wasn't able to ask that question, but I strongly urge everyone to go to his future appearances and try to ask it or something similar.
I spent the next 21 months trying to urge people to do just that, with zero success. If at any time during those 21 months, someone had really pressed Obama about that or about the dozens of other legitimate topics they had available to them and had caught the exchange on video, they could have greatly reduced his chances of becoming president.
And, if the question was about immigration, they could have done something about Geraldo, MMFA, and other illegal activity supporters.
Instead, those supposed Obama opponents engaged in a series of worthless and oftentimes counter-productive activities. They lied about his policies, making it easy for the mainstream media to avoid discussing things about him that were true. Or, they constantly pushed topics that clearly weren't going to break through. And, so on.
And, now those same low-wattage leaders are pushing the "tea parties".
Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette offers "Suspect in officers' shooting was into conspiracy theories" (link) about the recent shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh by an obviously deranged 22-year-old. He takes advantage of that tragedy to smear his or his paper's opponents:
Mr. Poplawski's view of guns and personal freedom took a turn toward the fringes of American politics. With Mr. Perkovic, he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country.
...Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.
He was also a member of Stormfront. Ergo, in Roddy's mind, Alex Jones = Stormfront. And, whatever Jones' ideology, I don't think "far-right" is accurate. And, while Jones is "out there" a good part of the time, he's also had a couple scoops about things that sounded loony but which turned out later to be true.
Regarding the troops, see December's "20,000 U.S. military troops to help with "homeland security" in U.S. by 2011", which links to a Washington Post article about such a scheme. That was also discussed in September; the Army Times and the underlying documents included the possibility of using troops for crowd control.
One of the shooter's friends alludes to media bias regarding the MSM not covering states recently declaring sovereignty with the implication that there is no such bias. There's a round-up here from the Christian Science Monitor; Google News wasn't exactly filled with similar MSM articles. A smaller paper covered the movement in Pennsylvania here, a story that I couldn't locate at the Post-Gazette's site.
In case you think Roddy is just presenting facts without attempting to smear, he continues with this:
"For some time now there has been a pretty good connection between being sucked into this conspiracy world and propagating violence," said Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center and an expert on political extremists. She called Mr. Poplawski's act, "a classic example of what happens when you start buying all this conspiracy stuff."
Over to Ed Morrissey at the same site (hotair.com/archives/2009/04/05/kos-conservatives-like-to-shoot-cops):
Those who would use such horrifying tragedies to smear their political opponents are completely unworthy of engagement, and utterly despicable to boot, regardless of which side they’re on.
UPDATE: Also, as discussed at the last HotAir link, Kos said on twitter that "Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk "revolution" and shoot cops." He may have just been "joking".
UPDATE 2: The Anti Defamation League has also gotten involved in the smear; that and the other issues above are answered in "Poplawski Smear Debunked: Cop Killer Held Opposing Views To Infowars" (link).
UPDATE 3: Both RawStory and a DailyKos blogger have retracted Alex Jones-related smears (link). However, Sean Hamill of the New York Times and Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America continue the smear (link, link).
McCain lashes out over leading on immigration "reform" and not getting "Hispanic vote"; not a moment of clarity - 04/03/09
John McCain sounds angry and frustrated that, despite the risks he took in pushing immigration reform, Hispanic voters flocked to Democrat Barack Obama in last year's presidential contest. McCain's raw emotions burst forth recently as he heatedly told Hispanic business leaders that they should now look to Obama, not him, to take the lead on immigration.
What follows is he said, she said hearsay. Whatever he said and however he said it, don't worry: the GOP will be back to pandering in no time without realizing that no matter how much they pander, the Democrats can always undercut them simply by pandering more. The GOP leadership clearly doesn't have the brainpower to be able to figure that out.
UPDATE: Matt Corley of ThinkProgress offers "Report: ‘Angry’ McCain Referred To Hispanics As ‘You People’ During Outreach Meeting" (thinkprogress.org/2009/04/03/mccain-hispanics-you-people). He only concentrates on the low-hanging fruit: the contention that McCain was angry and his supposed use of "you people", which Corley implies is a racial insult despite that being beyond a stretch. That post also contains several racist comments, such as "Old White Man, it’s long past time to step aside, get on that golf cart with Pappa Bush and ride away... PEACE".
John Amato of Crooks and Liars concentrates on the same childish aspects and also makes this absurd claim: "[McCain] did push the Bush immigration deal, but you know it was just response to the anger many Latinos felt over Sensenbrenner's HOUSE bill." That refers to HR4473, and it's completely wrong: McCain is part true believer, part corrupt hack who does the bidding of corrupt businesses; what he supported wasn't a response to anything other than that.
Both posts are from lightweights in both knowledge of this issue and influence, but they do illustrate how the Dems will always be able to undercut Republicans on this issue, no matter how hard the GOP panders. The only way to beat the Dems at that game would be to be more Dem than the Dems, but someone wouldn't be a Republican if they went that far. The GOP needs to play a different game using a different set of rules, a set designed to undercut the Dems. Unfortunately, the GOP is too dumb and corrupt to do that.
UPDATE 2: Dianna Parker of Media Matters for America uses the article to continue their tradition of misleading about McCain's position on immigration, saying (mediamatters.org/items/200904060003):
Yet, despite repeatedly referring to how McCain "buck[ed] his party on immigration" prior to 2008, at no point did the article address McCain's flip-flop on immigration reform during the 2008 presidential campaign. As a candidate, McCain said he would vote against his own comprehensive immigration bill if it came to the Senate floor, arguing that border security must be addressed before any other reforms.
McCain's supposed flip-flop was just a sleazy tactic he was using to get "reform". The idea that he was turning his back on "reform" is absurd. Prior to the election, saying things like the above could have been a completely disingenuous tactic to get McCain to hurt himself with the GOP base even more by trying to force him to come out again and say that he did eventually want "reform". Now it's just completely disingenuous. And, like the rest, it shows that the GOP just can't win as Dem Lite on this issue.
Hannah Dreier of Media Matters for America offers a misleading view of Nancy Pelosi's recent remarks in Dobbs falsely claimed Pelosi said "immigration law enforcement is, quote-unquote, 'un-American" (mediamatters.org/items/200903240035):
Summary: On his radio show, Lou Dobbs asked his guest for his "reaction" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "saying last week that enforcement in the workplace, immigration law enforcement is, quote-unquote, 'un-American.' " In fact, Pelosi criticized as "un-American" immigration raids that separate undocumented parents from their documented children, not "immigration law enforcement."
Perhaps Dobbs should have been more lawyerly in his language, but her cavil is a distinction with not much of a difference. Here's the relevant portion of Pelosi's earlier comments:
How then could America say it’s ok to send parents of children away? What value system is that? I think it’s un-American. I think it’s un-American... ...Who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families?
In the first part of the quote, Pelosi is discussing mixed-status families; in the second part, she's apparently trying to restrict it to fugitive/criminal alien enforcement (rather than workplace raids). However, the first part makes the second part moot: workplace raids can result in family separation just as much as other types of raids.
Note that there are somewhere around between three and five million U.S. citizen children with at least one illegal alien parent. And, a good number of current illegal aliens have been here for many years.
That means that any immigration raid has a good chance of resulting in some form of family separation, unless the illegal alien takes their children home with them. Since there's no law or policy mandating that only those without children can be deported and that all those who have children will not be deported, Pelosi is indeed opposing raids in general. In Pelosi's view, pretty much any form of immigration enforcement other than border enforcement is "un-American".
Zogby poll shows how misinformed Obama's supporters are (and is yet another example of Obama's opponents making mistakes) - 11/19/08
John Ziegler - a former KFI talk jock who was pushed out after a dispute with John & Ken - has a video documentary including interviews with Barack Obama supporters showing how ignorant and/or misinformed they are.
His site (link) also includes a Zogby poll he commissioned that tries to show the same thing. Unfortunately, some of the questions that are supposedly true either aren't true or are disputed.
So, it's a two-fer. The poll shows not only how misinformed many Obama supporters are, but also provides yet another example of Obama's opponents making mistakes. See #18 at that list for a point directly relating to this poll.
Note that Obama's supporters will jump all over the mistakes the poll makes in order to blunt its impact. In fact, I'm going to provide a blank update section in expectation of them doing exactly that.
The poll was conducted after the election, with "97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates". Some of the questions are about Sarah Palin and show that people have bought the MSM/SNL caricature of Palin. And, very few people were actually doing effective things to fight that caricature; see the "mistakes" link above. Let's take a look at some of the Obama questions, like:
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
The veracity of this question is disputed; I haven't looked into who's telling the truth, but see mediamatters.org/items/200806020007.
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
That question is not entirely correct: Ayers' home was only one of the places, not the exact place. In fact, Obama's surrogates spent a lot of time pointing out that the official location where he started his career was a hotel conference room; see the Lynn Sweet article. In discussing that, I said:
It helps illustrate a problem the McCain campaign has had that the Obama-supporting MSM has tried to drive a truck through. Namely, when speaking about the Bill Ayers-Barack Obama connection they haven't presented the matter in ultra-precise, lawyerly terms.
Obviously, that same inability to figure out the correct way to do things continues with the Ziegler documentary.
Are there any Obama opponents who have both a megaphone and the ability to figure things out?
UPDATE: [space reserved for Obama's supporters using mistakes in the above questions to blunt the impact of the poll.]
UPDATE 2: Zig made yet another mistake, at least on the video. Sarah Palin said you can see Russia from Alaska. In her SNL take-off, Tina Fey changed that to seeing Russia from her "house", and that's how it is in the Zogby poll excerpt provided at the link above. However, on the video he uses the word "home", which is a more general term than "house": Alaska is Palin's "home", and some on the video might have taken it in that sense.
And, in response to the first comment, by "Obama's supporters" I'm refering to the MSM and leftwing bloggers, not necessarily all his supporters.
It used to be that "liberals" would strongly oppose corrupt foreign governments "losing" paperwork in order to stifle speech. However, when things like that are done in support of Barack Obama, their response is a bit different. Here are some instances of those discussing the detention in Kenya of Jerome Corsi, author of the anti-BHO book Obama Nation. Think of these as a preview of how his supporters will act should he become president:
John Kerry's "Campaign for Our Country" has started a new website called Truth Fights Back (truthfightsback.com), and it's pretty bad. For instance, consider the post "Barack Obama is not aligned with Weather Underground", which combines 3rd-grade-level writing with 3rd-grade-level thinking. This is the "smear" (truthfightsback.com/site/smear/200):
Republicans have repeatedly pushed a bogus story about William Ayers, a member of the 60s-era Weather Underground. They make all sorts of bogus claims about his association with Barack Obama and repeatedly try to make the connection between the two stronger.
And, this is the supposed counterattack:
Barack Obama has very little connection to William Ayers. Barack Obama served on the board of a non-profit in Chicago. This non-profit also asked Ayers, now a professor at the University of Chicago, to serve on the board. Obama had nothing to do with his inclusion on the board. Very early in his career, Barack Obama attended one event at Ayer's house, organized for Obama. This was over a decade ago.
Needless to say, there's more to it: link, americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/finally_the_media_discovers_ob.html
They also discuss the recent Jerome Corsi book (truthfightsback.com/site/smear/236), linking to Media Matter's supposed debunking article (mediamatters.org/items/200808040005). While some of the points MMFA makes are worrisome, most are indeed rather trivial.
Their entry on Obama's Global Poverty Act combines some debunking with a lot of disingenuousness (truthfightsback.com/site/smear/230). The RNC sent out a fundraising letter which is apparently excerpted at crooksandliars.com/2008/08/07/the-lunatics-are-running-the-rncs-asylum:
A bill he has sponsored in the U.S. Senate, the so-called Global Poverty Act
(S. 2433), would raise the amount of American tax dollars allocated to United Nations’ redistribution efforts to $845 billion.
FTS correctly points out that that's not accurate: the bill would only spend $1 million. But, they're disingenuous in pretending that that's all it would do:
Obama does sponsor the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433), an attempt to focus on one of the largest contributors to global instability. However, it simply asks for a refocusing of resources toward this goal, not new spending, essentially mandating more efficiency and focus in meeting this huge problem. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year." It would, therefore, take 8,450 years for the Global Poverty Act to spend the money the RNC claims it would spend.
The DNC (draft) position is to support those MDGs, and Obama wants to meet those goals as well. That is going to require an outlay of billions of dollars, even if only $1 million is spent on the study and the like initially.
FTS also has a rather interesting commenting policy, straight outta Moscow:
TruthFightsBack.com has a strict commenting policy. This is a site for debunking false attacks and misleading smears against Democrats. If you are not interested in that goal, please feel free to comment elsewhere. And due to the emotional nature of the subject matter, we have a few rules that go farther than we would on a normal blog to try to keep the vitriol lower than otherwise possible. We have a goal of finding and spreading the truth, not in attacking others. To further that goal, these behaviors will not be tolerated in comments:
* furthering and amplifying the smears against Democrats
* attacking other posters
* profanity directed at any other poster
* smears against Republicans
* off-topic remarks for their own sake
Freelance writer and Vanity Fair contributor Judy Bachrach offers a smear of Lou Dobbs in "Lou Doubts" (poder360.com/article_detail.php?id_article=549). It's yet another example of the illegal activity-supporting establishment trying to reduce his influence in order to profit from illegal activity in one way or another.
Pew Hispanic: interest in immigration lags behind education, cost of living, jobs, healthcare, and crime - 07/24/08
The Pew Hispanic Center has released their "2008 National Survey of Latinos: Hispanic Voter Attitudes". It finds that a great majority of those surveyed support Barack Obama over John McCain (66% vs. 23%). And, interest in immigration is lower than that in education, the cost of living, jobs, healthcare, and crime.
Congratulations to Paul Waldman of Media Matters for America, who's just now won the BOSA, also known as the Barack Obama Sycophant Award, the Toady, the Yglesias, and other names too numerous to mention!
Last seen here calling the NAFTA Superhighway a myth and then admitting that it exists in one form, Waldman contributes to the American Prospect's TAPPED. BOSA judges "tapped" the following excerpt from this post as one of the reasons for the award. Referring to BHO, Waldman says:
He has always presented himself as the embodiment of what we all want America to be: inclusive, future-oriented, moving beyond our differences to embrace what binds us together. So patriotic talk isn’t something he has recently embraced, it’s actually at the heart of his narrative, which has been consistent from day one.
Now, that's sycophancy!
But, the judges also awarded him the Smithers Tassle to go with the main award for the article "McCain's Desperate Debate Gambit":
John McCain knows his campaign is in trouble, and so he's trying to pressure Barack Obama into a long series of town hall meetings. But speeches are the real way the president appeals to the public.
That whole participatory democracy thing where we press our politicians on their lies was getting so old. Much better to just sit there and listen to Barack Obama read a script someone else has written rather than trying to ask him about his frequent lies and misleading statements.
It will be difficult for others to achieve the level of sheer sycophantic slaggishness that Waldman has, but many others will surely try in the near future.
Eric Hananoki/Media Matters tries pretending that McCain differs from Hillary and Obama on immigration - 03/26/08
Eric Hananoki of Media Matters for America offers "Chicago Tribune falsely claimed Clinton, Obama, and McCain "essentially agree" on immigration" (mediamatters.org/items/200803250002):
Summary: In an article on immigration as a campaign issue, the Chicago Tribune reported that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, McCain has said he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first."
The article is here. MMFA is just playing word games and confusing support for specific versions of legislation with the fact that all three candidates support amnesty.
McCain now says he wants to "secure the borders" first, but after that (probably largely symbolic move) he'd simply do the same thing as Obama and Clinton would do. All three are supporters of "comprehensive immigration reform", even if what exactly that means changes depending on the tactics they deem necessary to push it through.
3/31 UPDATE: Doubling down, "M.A." (full name unknown) offers '[Lou] Dobbs claimed there "isn't much difference" among the three candidates, except on Iraq' (mediamatters.org/items/200803310008). Note the lawyerly attempt to deceive: "As Media Matters has documented, Obama and Clinton both support comprehensive immigration reform. By contrast, McCain abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration legislation during his campaign for the Republican nomination.". He may or may not have abandoned his support for that specific piece of legislation, but not for the overall concept of amnesty.
Kathleen Henehan/Media Matters promotes economic benefits of illegal immigration
Media Matters for America plays word games re: their funding
Media Matters for America shows left's regard for free speech
Media Matters for America defending al Jazeera
Soros-funded Media Matters deletes yet another comment
Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films has a new crusade: trying to stop the Fox News "virus" that supposedly spreads from Fox to the rest of the MSM, specifically as it relates to criticism of Barack Obama. Their foxattacks.com/virus page makes it clear that, if Greenwald had his way, Fox would be off the air:
Fox is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization.
We Can Stop The Hate: Mexico-linked groups try silencing opponents of illegal immigration - 01/31/08
The extremist-funding National Council of La Raza has started a new effort called We Can Stop The Hate (wecanstopthehate.org) which is attempting to silence those who support our immigration laws by highlighting what they call examples of "hate". Three of their cohorts in the effort have at least indirect links to the Mexican government. Note that that government has explicitly stated that they're going to be using U.S.
Thursday's CNN Democratic debate featured more than wimpy questions and a CNN-approved lie. Some of the audience members who asked questions weren't just regular Joes and Janes. And, CNN failed to disclose those links.
From the transcript:
[Wolf Blitzer:] you're going to be hearing directly from voters here in Nevada. They're going to have a chance to ask these Democratic presidential candidates questions...