UPDATE: Here's the video! Finest speech I've ever seen from him, and that's saying quite a lot. I cannot wait to see his inauguration speech:

(h/t The Poor Man Institute, whose caption for the speech is "Owned!")

Overall, I think he hit all the right notes...if you want to read the whole thing, clicky clicky.

Thoughts, out of order:

1. He hit the abortion issue in a way that all but the most rabidly uninformed "pro-lifers" should be able to understand:

"...whatever we believe about abortion, we can all agree on lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies."

2. The line about McCain being willing to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but not to the cave where he lives was perfect, considering the fact that McCain is on record saying he's not willing to go after bin Laden in Pakistan.

3. Big fan of this line: “You don’t defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq.”

4. The forceful "Enough!" sent the right message. So did 75,000 almost 85,000 Americans screaming "Yes, We Can!" and "Eight is Enough!"

5. Bob Cesca comments from his live-blog, which I happen to endorse wholeheartedly:

10:16PM
"ENOUGH!" This could be his strongest, greatest address to date.

10:41PM
He said "temperament" to be commander in chief. Hoo-hoo! Take that, St. McAnger.

10:48PM
"So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first."

10:58PM
Wow. I'm floored.

11:01PM
I'm seriously speechless. Extraordinary. It was smart, bold, strong, a lot eff-you-McBush. After so many years of despair -- we're on our way out of the dark.

11:09PM
Like it matters, but Bill Kristol just said "Obama exceeded expectations" and went on to praise it for a number of reasons including Obama's love of America. Finally, Kristol is right about something.

Haha, Bill Kristol was right. Never thought that would happen. I was equally floored, and I've seen Obama speak quite a lot. Later on, Cesca quotes a piece from the AP (via Fox News), which criticizes the speech. In this campaign, under Ron Fournier, if the AP doesn't like it, it must have been brilliant. Especially considering the fact that the douchetard AP writer posted the article before the speech ended.

6. Jed Report:

In one speech, Barack Obama not only destroyed every single argument John McCain has made during this campaign, but he also explained who he is and what he's fighting for.

But Barack Obama wasn't just talking about the election tonight. He was talking about America. He wasn't just addresing the challenges his campaign must confront. He was addressing the challenges our nation must confront.

A conservative friend wrote me after the speech ended: "Barack Obama is going to win in a landslide," he said. There's a lot of work yet to be done, and I don't know that we'll win a landslide, but as I said yesterday, I have no doubts we will win. The question is by how much.

There you have it.

And that's going to have to be all until I find the video later. I'm hungry.

Picture above also via Jed, by the way.

"In CIA-speak, They'd Call Him a NOC"

He's referring to this article, which appeared this morning.

The Juice:

Standing before thousands of delegates, almost half of them her backers, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton declared it time "to unite as a single party with a single purpose" and urged her followers to help elect once-bitter rival Barack Obama. "We are on the same team," she said, after allowing the applause to build to a crescendo and linger, longer than usual — much like the Democratic primary race itself.

"Barack Obama is my candidate," she said. "And he must be our president."

But did she mean it? And would it matter?

When I analyze a news article, the juice usually appears in the first few and the last few paragraphs and Fournier was true to this maxim; his summation?

Behind the scenes Tuesday, the Obama and Clinton camps struck a tentative deal that would allow some states to cast votes in a roll call before somebody — possibly Clinton herself — cuts short the tally and asks the convention to nominate Obama by unanimous consent. This was her price for ending her historic bid for the presidency in a manner that, however messy, still left Obama in a stronger position than Kennedy left Jimmy Carter in 1980, when the Massachusetts senator extracted platform concessions and shrank from the traditional unity show at the final gavel.

But she did extract her price.

The bill came due Tuesday. The crowd. The applause. The promise of a vote Wednesday, and a speech laced 17 times by some variation of the pronoun "I."

"You never gave up," Clinton told her delegates, a phrase that so perfectly fits her. "You never gave up. And together we made history."

"Extracted her price"? "Speech laced 17 times with the pronoun I"? This isn't analysis, it's editorializing.

When I first read the criticisms of Fournier over at the Reality-Based Community I was skeptical. At least one article to which Mark Kleiman linked was, I thought, jumping at shadows. But having read more and given the matter some thought, I have to say Kleiman got it right.

I'm loathe to call out bias in the press. As a former journalist, (Not something I'm pretending to be here, this is a blog, not a newspaper) I was regularly accused of having a conservative bias by one side, and a liberal bias by the other, on virtually every issue. I always assumed as long as the criticisms were roughly even, I was probably doing a proper job. I've made some accusations; "Faux News" being one example and MSNBC moving closer by the day to joining the list of places whom I no longer trust without a second source.

Today I'm adding another source to the list of semi-trusted sources: The Associated Press. I never thought I'd live to see the day.

It's time for the AP to give Fournier the boot so he can work directly for the GOP instead of merely being their mole in a respected news organization. They should do it quickly, while they still have a shred of credibility left.

You can see for yourself in this video.

Take note: The reporter refers to the marchers as "Anti Obama protesters". The truth is that these marchers are anti-war and anti-torture protesters.

You may be wondering just what does that have to do with the Associated Press (AP)? The connection is Karl Rove. Seems like Ron Fournier, chief DC correspondent for the AP has a friendship with Karl Rove. This explains Fournier baseless attack on Barack Obama's choice for VP saying that it highlights Obama's lack of confidence. That's an odd statement considering a person lacking confidence would not have been president of the Harvard Law Review nor would this person have been elected to the Senate. Looks like Fournier doesn't know what he is talking about.

Media Matters has more on Fournier and his good pal Karl Rove.

I'll never understand how anyone can trust Karl Rove or George W Bush or Dick Cheney or John McCain. Everyone of these people are "users" and "takers" and would quickly turn on each other if there was money to be made or power to be grabbed.

We must stand up to this lying media. A lot has changed since 2004 and we must make sure that we take our country back and speak truth to these lies.

~ signed: Just another Patriot

UPDATE:  Looks like Spike Lee doesn't do Fox News either.

New Political Animal head honcho Steve Benen has penned the ultimate smackdown of Ron "keep up the fight" Fournier's bullshit op-ed-masquerading-as-analysis re: the newly announced Obama/Biden ticket (sample dingleberry of wisdom: Biden "talks too much"--yep, that's why they pay Ron the big bucks, folks), both of which y'all should check out (assuming you haven't yet done so). But I want to highlight something that Andrew Sullivan also noticed regarding Fournier and his blatant (if inconsistent) use of "aggressive Republican spin":

Last spring...Fournier was lambasting Obama for arrogance [link added--mb]. Now, apparently, it's a lack of confidence. Whatever works, I guess. But please, get a blog.

From "ooz[ing] entitlement" to lacking confidence--apparently even the DC bureau chief of the Associated Press has trouble keeping GOP talking points straight. Forget blogging -- methinks Fournier should just get out of the beltway entirely, maybe score himself a nice quiet job behind the counter of Dunkin' Donuts.

Whatever works, natch.

Related: Jack and Jill Politics rounds up a cross-section of responses to the veep announcement from POC commentators; Jimmy Orr Peter Grier provides a more, um, traditional (read: analytical) analysis; Cara is underwhelmed, skdadl is optimistic, publius is "psyched" and Hilzoy is thankful Obama didn't pick Bayh (aren't we all); Delaware native Shawn Mullen paints an informative (if at times fawning) portrait of Biden; various reactions from NARAL, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Wolfson, who notes that Obama's pragmatic, traditional veep choice "gives an opening to the McCain campaign to pick a woman or make an out-of-the-box selection."

Update: This is interesting:

The Washington Bureau Chief of the Associated Press, Ron Fournier, may command speaker's fees of up to $10,000 per appearance.

As of this writing, Fournier appears to be available for booking through the All American Talent & Celebrity Network's website. I called to confirm that he was still listed with the agency, but I haven't heard back yet.

According to his speaker bio, Fournier co-wrote a book called Applebee's America with Bush's former chief strategist Matthew Dowd and former high-level Clinton adviser, Doug Sosnik. Appropriately enough, the 2006 book is a treatise on political marketing for politicians, captains of industry, and mega-church pastors.

AP's ethics policy on outside appearances:

OUTSIDE APPEARANCES:
Employees frequently appear on radio and TV news programs as panelists asking questions of newsmakers; such appearances are encouraged.

However, there is potential for conflict if staffers are asked to give their opinions on issues or personalities of the day. Advance discussion and clearance from a staffer's supervisor are required.

Employees must inform a news manager before accepting honoraria and/or reimbursement of expenses for giving speeches or participating in seminars at colleges and universities or at other educational events if such appearance makes use of AP's name or the employee represents himself or herself as an AP employee. No fees should be accepted from governmental bodies; trade, lobbying or special interest groups; businesses, or labor groups; or any group that would pose a conflict of interest. All appearances must receive prior approval from a staffer's supervisor.

h/t Steve Clemons

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Go Obama/Biden. This is the winning pick!

Today's example, already much remarked-upon,  is this Ron Fournier piece on Biden, headlined "Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence," and begins with this lede: "The candidate of change went with the status quo."

The eye-catching hed/lede (which are what most people will see scanning their computer screens or newspapers) communicates two things: Obama is not confident and Obama is a hypocrite. The rest of the piece is pretty standard stuff. So one assumes the AP is out mainly to catch your eye, to provoke. But it offers no real evidence of a "lack of confidence" or hypocrisy, really. And thus, only leaves us confused as to where the AP, once the straightest of straight-shooters, is coming from on this.

Pierre Trudel a donc parlé (genre ici) de Ron *Ron-Ron-Ron* Fournier, notre cher arbitre recyclé en analyste de hockey (quelque chose du genre la!) et qui est adoré de tous... à quelques exceptions près.

Ce que ça dit en résumé (parce que l'article comme tel est relativement court donc vous pourrez le lire sans lire mon résumé mais bon, j'en fais un pareil juste pour en faire un) c'est qu'il y a eu une plainte de déposé par un auditeur (ahhh! le pas fin!) concernant des propos tenus par Ron-Ron-Ron lors d'une de ses émissions de Bonsoir les sportifs!  Ron-Ron-Ron aurait fait, toujours selon cet auditeur pas fin, de l'incitation à la violence.

«Dans un premier temps, j'ai suggéré que Price se plaigne aux arbitres. Si ça ne fonctionnait pas, j'ai dit qu'il était important d'envoyer un message aux joueurs adverses. Comment? Peut-être avec un bon coup de «biscuit» derrière la tête ou de «sherwood» dans les jambes. C'est tout.»

C'est tout??? Ben oui! c'est tout! Bon, c'est sûr que si tu prends les propos de Ron-Ron-Ron avec ben du sérieux... ben... t'as un sérieux problème.  Si tu le prends mot pour mot, ben y'a juste la première moitié des propos de Ron-Ron-Ron qui serait controversé (le bout concernant le coup de biscuit la! et encore là, on peut se défendre en disant qu'il voulait dire un coup de biscuit comme dans "écraser un fortune cookie" derrière le coco...) parce qu'après ça, il parle de «sherwood» dans les jambes pis Carey Price, c'est un bâton Reebok qu'il a et non un Sherwood...

Pis Carey, il n'a même pas écouté Ron-Ron-Ron au complet, parce qu'il a plutôt retenu la tête du joueur qui le dérange avec son Reebok...

Voilà!

]]> http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/?p=710 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:22:29 +0000 Evan http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/?p=710 Or: Look at me, I'm finally using a Google reader, and I'm playing with it, and I'm throwing up links I find interesting!

Let's go:

Even White Supremacist Fucks have Obamania! Seems that the fact that we're about to elect a black president is a boon for recruitment among the "I'm completely uneducated and can't even speak my own native language, but I think I'm superior based on my light European complexion!" set. And really, the anti-American right-wing insurgent/terrorist segment of the population is probably just gearing up. Knoxville was probably just a preview. More on that in a minute.

But, well, speaking of Knoxville, now that we've had a domestic terrorist enter a church of intelligent, free-thinking people, due in part to the fact that his head had been filled with mindless hate-speech about the supposed threats from gays and liberals, now that this is right in front of us, Kirk James Murphy, M.D. asks "Will Obama Break Off His Date With Right Wing Eliminationist Hate Preachers"? The question is about the pastor Rick Warren and the little faith-based spectacle Obama and McCain are submitting themselves to at Warren's Bareback Saddlefuck Saddleback Church in Orange County. An excerpt from Murphy's piece:

After Sunday's massacre, will we see Senator Obama renounce his decision to appear with and submit to questions from an eliminationist right-wing hate preacher?

I'm not talking right-wing preachers who keep their eliminationist beliefs in the closet. Nope -- I'm talking mega-published globe-trotting eliminationist right-wing preachers: the sort who tell the Pew Forum:

By the way, my wife and I had dinner at a gay couple's home two weeks ago. So I'm not homophobic guy, okay?

-- and then later flies off to Kampala to preach the opposite ... stoking intolerance and prejudice among "Christians" who often kill their fellow believers for being gay.

Richard Bartholomew picked up the story in Uganda Media: Rick Warren Denounces Gay Rights:

The Kampala Monitor reports:

Dr [Rick] Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. “We shall not tolerate this aspect at all,” Dr Warren said.

Warren was speaking in support of Ugandan Anglicans who intend to boycott the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, and this harsh rejection of tolerance for gays and lesbians may have serious consequences in a country where homosexuals face harrassment and and the threat of imprisonment.

Warren's comment is of a piece with his support for Martin Ssempa, the Ugandan evangelist who has been a keynote speaker at a Warren conference, and who has received US global AIDS prevention funds. As I wrote in August, Ssempa wants to ensure that homosexuality remains illegal and that gays and lesbians are identified in the public mind as sexual abusers. Ssempa calls for media censorship against opposing views and the dismissal of dissenting academics, and last summer he organised a rally with the theme "A Call for Action on Behalf of the Victims of Homosexuality", at which he railed against "molestation and sodomy." Another past Warren conference delegate is Janet Museveni, wife of Uganda's increasingly autocratic president. I discussed the dubious consequences of Mrs Museveni's evangelical approach to HIV and AIDS on Talk to Action here; Esther Kaplan has explored the issue in further depth.

In the piece Murphy also explores Rick Warren's connections with known hyper-bigot Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who is deadset on destroying the Anglican church because he hates gays that much:

Akinola has been essential to the break. He defied the requests of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Episcopal presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and installed the Virginian Martyn Minns as a bishop of the Nigerian church, after Minns broke from the Episcopal one. Just as critically, he has been a mouthpiece for the most homophobic tendencies within the church, telling the New York Times that he jumped back in horror the first time he met a gay couple, comparing homosexuality to everything from pedophilia to zoophilia, and pushing for Nigeria to enact a five-year mandatory sentence for homosexual acts or "associations", a bill so broad that it could lead to the imprisonment of AIDS caregivers. While there would surely be conservatives fighting against Robinson and the liberalization he represents without Akinola, he has increased their power and influence tremendously.

In no small part because of these retrograde social views, Akinola has wide support among American conservatives. After Minns' installation, the Washington Post published a mash note to Akinola by Michael Gerson, calling his Christianity "undeniably alive" and denouncing Williams and Schori's "condescension". Rick Warren even compared him to Nelson Mandela [oh my god that is the fucking sickest thing I've ever heard...this is why Obama and McCain should tell Saddleback and Warren to get fucked. - Ed.]. Warren would do better to head the words of Mandela's ally, and Akinola's fellow Anglican Archbishop, Desmond Tutu: "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."

Sheesh. Rick Warren's disgusting associations don't end there, either. Read Murphy's whole piece.

I'll post more fully my thoughts on the Knoxville right-wing terrorist act tomorrow. There's so much to it...

Ummm...what else?

For once, John McCain doesn't have cancer.

In light of the fact that a certain pro-McCain bias has been found in the AP's reporting (and light of the fact that the AP are just being fucking dicks in general), it's interesting to note that the AP's Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier, was offered a position with the McCain campaign. Obviously, he rejected it, but maybe he's doing a little pro bono work for the McCain campaign at the AP. Moral of story: If you read it in the AP, and it's about McCain or Obama, now's a good time to be a tad skeptical, and at least do some cross-checking, k?

Speaking of cross-checking, there's a little rumor going around that Obama's prayer wasn't stolen from the Western Wall at all, oh no, the Obama campaign leaked it themselves, and also I have some beachfront property I'd like to sell you in Nebraska. Yeah, the rumor is unfettered bullshit. Tell your retarded friends.

Ugh, Nancy Pelosi on The View today:

(h/t Rumproast, who correctly titled their post "Nancy PeLoser")

Okay, that's enuff for now. Verdict on using an RSS reader, finally? Yes.

With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses.

In that year and a half at the White House, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies. During daily briefings, he challenged reporters, scolded them and questioned their motives as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing.

Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.

Bill O'Reilly clearly wasn't touched by the Associate Press' treatment of Snow. He had this to say yesterday:

Over the weekend, we eulogized Tony Snow in a personal way. I hope you saw our broadcast because I believe we painted a very accurate picture of a great man. Tonight we'll get into policy — the things that Tony believed in and the challenges he faced going public with those beliefs.

Hours after Tony died early Saturday morning, the Associated Press published an obituary of him. Written by Douglass Daniel, the obit listed Tony's bio and some of his achievements, but it also injected a left-wing partisan viewpoint, which was insulting to the Snow family and completely inappropriate.

Just a few weeks ago, the AP ran a terrific obituary for Tim Russert, avoiding any cheap shots. But Daniel could not do that for Tony Snow as he wrote: "With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses. Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation."

Now, if you want to criticize Tony's White House career, do it after he's buried, OK, Associated Press? Your opinion of his job performance doesn't belong in an obituary. It was an insult to Tony's family and demonstrates once and for all the AP is no longer a news service. It has become a liberal clearing house.

Now, I myself just wrote a eulogy remembering both Tim Russert and Tony Snow. Tim Russert came from the Democratic ranks; and more than occasionally I believed that he was grilling Republicans in a way that he did not grill Democrats on his program. But I was writing a eulogy, and so I focused on the very best of these two men.

That's what you do when you eulogize, unless you are overly partisan. You look at the best of someone, and pointedly ignore the negative. The AP gave a magnificent, criticism-free sendoff to Tim Russert. It just couldn't find the same graciousness for a conservative.

Shame on them for allowing their thinly veiled political ideology to intrude on good taste.

Rush Limbaugh, commenting on the AP's lack of journalistic balance, said this:

A month ago I went on a riff about the lone remaining monopoly in the Drive-By Media, that being the Associated Press and I pointed out how dangerous they are. They still have a monopoly in the sense that every newspaper in the country subscribes to their service and prints their BS. Yesterday, Politico.com ran a story about the new Washington -- or the editor, bureau chief, whatever; Washington bureau chief; I forget what title he has, Ron Fournier, the former White House reporter. He has decided -- and I don't know how long ago they decided this, but it probably coincides pretty much with my noticing it, but they decided, he decided -- from now on the AP is going to start putting opinion in the news, that people are just too stupid to figure out what the news is without an opinion being thrown in there. Honestly this is what they said. I had the story in the stack yesterday. I think I have it anywhere near here, but I'm summarizing it pretty closely.

Limbaugh was referring to a Politico.com story titled, "Is Fournier saving or destroying the AP?" in which Ron Fournier, the head of the Associated Press’ Washington bureau, is revealed to encourage first-person writing and the use of emotive language in news stories. Part of the Politico piece points out the clear pitfall of Fournier's new approach to journalism:

Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”

“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”

A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”

Fournier cited the article in an essay titled “Accountability Journalism: Liberating reporters and the truth” he wrote for the June 1 issue of the AP’s internal newsletter, The Essentials, as an example of how to be “provocative without being partisan … truth-tellers without being editorial writers.”

"I call 'em as I see 'em" has little validity if you are in the tank for one side. You probably wouldn' t want a die-hard Lakers fan like me refereeing a Laker game in the playoffs if you are rooting for the other team - or even if you simply want an objectively-called game. It's not that I would deliberately cheat; it's just that my "pro-Laker" mentality and desire to see the Lakers win would alter my perception and affect my judgment.  Limbaugh used the media's outrage over the NBA referee scandal as an example of their own innate hypocrisy. It's too bad they refuse to apply the same standard and rationale about genuine objectivity for themselves that they reserve for everybody else.

Here is a collection of pieces I've writing discussing about the media's ideological biases:

NBC’s Deceptive Editing Reveals Why Bush Right and Obama Wrong

How to Demagogue the Economy

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

Media Frenzy over ABC Democratic Debate Reveals Leftist Bias

I chuckled over a July 14, 2008 Mallard Fillmore cartoon that read: "This just in!... The mainstream media now say they felt the need to cover the "Countrywide" loan scandal involving Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad just as aggressively as they cover Republican scandals... then quickly sat down until the feeling went away." It's absolutely true. They covered the story, and then let it slide into obscurity. Had it been a pair of Republicans, there would have been a daily drumbeat of coverage until the two resigned.

When the media becomes ideologically biased - which they have - they undermine the role our founding fathers intended for them in the Bill of Rights, and leave us vulnerable to the ramifications of a people with a distorted view of the world.

When they even feel the need to editorialize and present their biases in a eulogy, it is beyond petty.

But the obvious bias of the left-tilted media - which is revealed even in coverage eulogizing political journalists who have just passed away - is only part of the story. We also must recognize that there is a rabid left wing in this country that are absolutely vicious.

That viciousness was revealed following the announcement of the death of Tony Snow.

The LA Times has a moderated blog which had the following remarks allowed about Tony Snow:

I hope the rest of these criminals die too. Good riddance to a person who contributed to making this world a worse place. - Posted by: Max | July 12, 2008 at 05:58 AM

Its unfortunate he won't be able to see the damage he helped inflict on this country and the world. I wonder how he likes hell. - Posted by: tedson | July 12, 2008 at 06:27 AM

Was anyone more perfectly named for their job? Tony's Snow-jobs about Bushian idiocy only helped sink the nation into the hole where we are now. - Posted by: Johnsy | July 12, 2008 at 06:58 AM

Good riddance , we still have a white house full of liars
and American soldiers being slaughtered. if Cheney strokes
then change will begin , as for Bush he is just to stupid
to die and when he dies bury him at home in IRAQ.
- Posted by: slimjim66 | July 12, 2008 at 07:30 AM

This outrage indicates why new legislation should be put in place to require a regular colonoscopy for Snow's cohorts in propaganda. (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc) Only a careful inspection of their alimentary tracts will prevent their insolent, hatefilled cancer from developing and spreading. - Posted by: Passing LostAnglos | July 12, 2008 at 07:38 AM

The question begs to be asked, is it possible to die when you don't have a soul.
- Posted by: Chad | July 12, 2008 at 09:38 AM

Oh YES HE WAS A WONDERFUL MAN AND A …..
PUUULLLEEEASE
THIS PERSON HAD A MAJOR PART IN THE MOST EVIL ADMINISTRATION THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN.
DEATH AND TORTURE, ILLEGAL WARS, WAR CRIMINAL SOLDIERS, GOOD RIDDANCE
CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM
HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK………...
- Posted by: perry | July 12, 2008 at 02:26 PM

I have frequently heard liberals talk about how hateful the concept of "hell" is and that condemning biblically-forbidden behaviors and warning about the judgment of hell is hateful. But now I see that liberals don't mind talking about hell at all; they merely wish to reserve it for conservatives and those who actually believe in the Bible.

The Daily Kos, by all accounts, was even worse.

The hatred of the left must be pointed out. People need to see these people as they actually are. The people who talk about "tolerance" routinely shout down conservative speakers and broadcast outright visceral hatred for those with whom they disagree.

One of the posters to the LA Times blog had this to say:

All you right wingers would be saying much worse things if the same had happened to Ted Kennedy or Obama - you are nothing but trash and liars just like Snow job was. good riddance to bad rubbish. - Posted by: Alan | July 12, 2008 at 04:52 PM

Nope. When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, I wrote a piece asking for prayer for the man. I don't have the hatred for even Osama bin Laden that so many on the left publicly harbored for Tony Snow. I just don't have that kind of hate and meanness in me.

Nor have I ever come across a "right wing hate site" that was even close to the outright viciousness that is routinely contained in major liberal blogs such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos (and now the LA Times!!!).

The liberal media is not only overtly ideologically biased, but is now actually providing a forum for the worst kind of hatred (one LA Times blog comment allowed by the moderator asked whether Tony Snow would be buried in his Nazi uniform), has sunk to levels that are downright despicable. It is no wonder that they are losing their readership and viewership in droves.

Liberals ought to be ashamed.

The Ugly Tie Awards

by JT UTAH

Tout au long de la saison les chroniqueurs sportifs, journalistes et commentateurs s’amusent à critiquer et évaluer le travail des joueurs de hockey. Aujourd’hui, j’ai décidé de leur rendre la pareille. Cœur sensible, s’abstenir…

D’abord, les « Ugly Tie Awards » vont décerner des prix aux pires journalistes sportifs, mais vont aussi souligner le bon travail de certains. Les chroniqueurs sportifs qui ont été évalués sont ceux qui couvrent la scène francophone et qui sont associés aux médias de masse. Bref, les UTA ont évalués le travail des gens de chez TQS, SRC, RDS, TVA, CKAC, La Presse et le Journal de Montréal. Sur ce, let’s start bitching!! (ça fait toujours du bien)

TOP 5 DES PIRES CHRONIQUEURS / JOURNALISTES / ANALYSTES

5. Mathias Brunet, La Presse

En temps normal, je considère que Mathias et sa chronique Rondelle Libre est de bonne qualité. Malheureusement pour Mathias, il a commis une gaffe monumentale (le même genre de gaffe que Patrice Brisebois commettait back in the days) en annonçant à la une de La Presse que les gants de Marian Hossa était à Montréal, alors qu’ils s’agissaient de ceux de son frère Marcel. C’est pour cette raison que je dois mettre Mathias dans les Ugly Tie Awards, mais je vais rester poli et gentil avec lui. De toute façon, Mathias a dû manger un estie de char de marde de son boss cette journée là.

4. Ron Fournier, CKAC

Je ne vais pas m’attaquer aux compétences sportives de ROOONNNNN!!!!!, mais plutôt à sa personnalité et les éléments qui l’entourent. Je ne sais pas pour vous, mais Ron commence à m’énerver drôlement. Il est un peu « too much » et j’ai l’impression qu’il commence à avoir la grosse tête. Aussi, son association avec Quebecos et ses chroniques hebdomadaires à LCN sont peu pertinentes. Il semble que le seul but de mettre Ron à la télévision est de promouvoir son émission. Encore une fois, il doit s’agir d’une stratégie de convergence de la part de Quebecor. J’ai même peur que Quebecor force Corus a présenter une émission « Bon matin les Sporfif » avec Eric Salvail et Joel Legendre. Enfin, revenons à Ron. Par rapport à son comportement en ondes; est-ce que quelqu’un lui a déjà mentionné le proverbe « Trop c’est comme pas assez? ».

3. Le Baron, RDS

Je trouve que le Baron est tellement, comment dire…. wack? C’est qui lui anyway? En allant sur le site de RDS, je suis aller dans la section chroniqueur et collaborateur, et Alain Chantelois n’apparaissait pas sur la liste. Peut-être qu’il est sur le point d’être congédié…http://www.rds.ca/chroniqueurs/. Aussi, Le Baron est le genre d’individu sans cervelle qui tente de parler plus fort que les autres afin de combler son manque d’intelligence et de pertinence. Enfin, est-ce que quelqu’un chez RDS va lui conseiller un nouveau coiffeur? Même Jean Charest a une chevelure plus belle que la sienne.

2. Michel Bergeron, TQS

Michel, quelques conseils à te donner : Premier conseil: Arrête de vivre dans les années 70! Deuxième conseil : Porter des grosses bagues cheap de championnat junior ne donne pas de crédibilité à tes propos. Troisième conseil : Faire référence à tes années derrière le banc n’a plus aucun rapport avec le hockey d’aujourd’hui. Disons que tu sembles un peu dépassé par la réalité de la nouvelle NHL. D’ailleurs, n’as-tu pas fait un examen de conscience lorsque ton grand chum, Pierre Lacroix, a refusé de t’offrir un poste d’entraîneur au Colorado. Pierre Lacroix n’a t’aurait même pas offert une job de vendeur de hot dog pour l’Avalanches.

1. Luc Gélinas, RDS

Je vais essayer de rester gentil avec M. Gélinas, car il semble être une bonne personne et je suis certain qu’il est agréable à côtoyer. Le problème avec Luc Gélinas est qu’il n’est pas à sa place. "Wrong guy at the wrong place, just like Ferguson as a GM", dise les Anglos de Toronto. D’abord, quelqu’un qui fait des entrevues en anglais, mais qu’il ne parle pas anglais donne un résultat catastrophique. Ensuite, lors du match face aux Coyotes, le travail que Luc Gélinas a fait était tout simplement DÉGUEULASSE. J’ai vraiment été obligé de fermé le son de la télé tellement qu’ils étaient poche. Je me suis même ennuyé de Pierre. Enfin, M. Gélinas n’a pas la voix et la prestance pour être à la télévision. Être bon devant une caméra n’est pas vraiment quelque chose qui s’apprend, c’est plutôt une question de l’avoir ou de ne pas l’avoir. M. Gélinas ne l’a tout simplement pas. Lorsqu’on est incapable de faire des entrevues, de commenter un match de hockey et d’être à l’aise devant une caméra, il est grand temps de changer de carrière. Désolé Luc.

Haaaaaa….Je me sens bien maintenant après avoir bitcher un peu. Maintenant, soulignons le bon travail de certains.

TOP 3 DES MEILLEURS CHRONIQUEURS / JOURNALISTES / ANALYSTES

3. Recrue de l’année : PJ Stock. TQS et plusieurs autres médias anglophones

Pour quelqu’un qui n’avait jamais parlé devant un micro, même en tant que joueur je doute que quelqu’un l’ai déjà interviewé, PJ se débrouille très bien. Un atout que Stock possède sur plusieurs est qu’il est parfaitement bilingue. Il est aussi bon en français qu’en anglais. Aussi, il faut quand même l’admettre, Stock est « beau bonhomme » et son habillement est de bon goût. Cela lui permet de bien paraître à la télévision. Je suis convaincu que Stock va acquérir une bonne réputation et il sera placé parmi les grands tels que Pierre McGuire et Bob McKenzie.

2. Athlète le plus amélioré : Benoît Brunet. RDS

Si j’avais fait les UTA l’an dernier, Benoît aurait définitivement été placé parmi les pires. Toutefois, Benoît a grandement amélioré ses lacunes, qui étaient surtout la qualité de son français et sa capacité à bien s’exprimer. Donc, un gros bravo à M. Brunet d’avoir fait ses devoirs. Aussi, Brunet a plus d’assurance lorsqu’il donne son opinion. On ne peut ignorer le fait qu’il a joué plusieurs saisons à Montréal et qu’il a côtoyé l’entraîneur chef du CH. Il a même gagné une coupe avec Carbo. Donc personne ne peut dire que Brunet ne sait pas de quoi il parle lorsqu’il fait référence à la vie de joueurs d’hockey à Montréal. La seule chose qui manque à Brunet c’est un bon partenaire…Sorry Jacques.

1. The Best of the Best : Duo Yanick Bouchard et Frédéric Plante. RDS

Ce duo a été comme un vent de fraîcheur à RDS. Avec un bassin de fan de plus en plus jeunes, RDS se devait d’offrir un duo jeune et humoristique à ses téléspectateurs. On voit que Bouchard et Plante ont une belle complicité en onde et qu’ils aiment leur travail. Même leur annonce de Mikes, un peu quétaine, est amusante. Je suis certain qu’ils font des blagues sur Gaston Therrien et Le Baron dans les bureaux de RDS. Ne lâchez pas les boys, vous êtes bon!

But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.

"Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics," his wife said a few weeks ago, adding that Americans will get only one chance to elect him.

Obama's cool self-confidence got him into trouble in New Hampshire when he said Clinton was "likable enough," faint praise that grated on female votes who didn't appreciate him condescending to the former first lady.

Privately, aides and associates of Obama tell stories about a boss who can be aloof and ungracious. He holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged, traits that President Bush packaged and sold under the "resolute" brand in the 2004 election. For Bush, those qualities proved to be dangerous in a time of war and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

If arrogance is a display of self-importance and superiority, Obama earns the pejorative every time he calls his pre-invasion opposition to the war in Iraq an act of courage.

While he deserves credit for forecasting the complications of war in 2002, Obama's opposition carried scant political risk because he was a little-known state lawmaker courting liberal voters in Illinois. In 2004, when denouncing the war and war-enabling Democrats would have jeopardized his prized speaking role at the Democratic National Convention, Obama ducked the issue.

dnA's broadcasting on the same frequency re: Ron Fournier:

You know, if there's anything that can keep Barack Obama from being president, it's the downright smoldering resentment some people feel at seeing a black person in a position of authority--let alone the position of authority.

It's kind of like they way white sportscasters talk about black athletes--they hate the swagger, the confidence borne of jumping the extra hurdles America tosses in your path. Professional sports organizations have spent more than a century trying to cut that swagger and style out of the sport by changing the rules at every opportunity, so it's no surprise that they'd do the same thing in politics.

So John McCain saying he's doing "The Lord's work in the city of Satan" is sincere and down to earth, while Obama joking about his charisma is "arrogant".

Or, as Steve M rhetorically puts it, "[j]okes, Ron. Jokes. Or are only white people allowed to be ironic?"

(Must. Resist. Simple. Answer.)

Also see John Cole and Robert Stein, both of whom also heard Fournier's whistle blowing loud and clear.

Elsewhere: Attaturk provides some other recent examples of thinly-veiled insinuations from mainstream pundits that Obama is just another uppity negro arrogantly oozes entitlement, while this Kos Diary from February 2007 (OMGWTFBBQ?! someone took the kid gloves off prematurely?!) screen-captures Salon with its slip showing (oops!):

So much for Bill Bennett's backhanded post-Iowa compliments.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Shorter Ron Fournier: "The boy's a bit too uppity for my liking. Doesn't know his place, if you know what I mean."

Jesus wept. Talk about walking a thin line.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

"Mitt Romney's victory in Michigan was a defeat for authenticity in politics.

"The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents' record and continued to show why he's the most malleable - and least credible - major presidential candidate."

I couldn't have said it better myself (though I've certainly tried)... and "malleable?"  What a perfect adjective for Mitt!

"This from a man who campaigned for governor of Democratic-leaning Massachusetts as a supporter of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control — only to switch sides on those and other issues in time for the GOP presidential race," writes the estimable Ron Fournier for the Associated Press in a story titled Romney's Sweet Spot Weak Spot

The first thing he did as a presidential contender in January was sign the same no-tax pledge an aide dismissed as "government by gimmickry" during the 2002 campaign.

"The Romney strategy with the speech appeared to be to try to kill two birds with one stone — to placate voters who are apprehensive about him as a Mormon or as a flip-flopper," said Costas Panagopoulos, a political scientist at Fordham University.

"But I am not convinced he was successful in doing either," Panagopoulos said. "At the end of the day, it is very difficult to change voters' pre-existing beliefs, and it would probably take a much more powerful speech than the one Romney delivered today."

It also may take more speeches ...

More speeches!? Will this nightmare ever end?

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1