SOURCE: Ben Dimiero, New Media Associate, Media Matters for America
bdimiero@mediamatters.org
www.mediamatters.org

I thought you might be interested in several recent items--

• Media ignore "bridge to nowhere" falsehood in Palin speech, despite having previously flagged it
• Media report Palin's claim that Obama has not "authored ... a single major law or reform" without noting laws he has passed
• Without refuting it, AP, Bloomberg report Palin accusation that Obama "wants to raise" taxes
• ABC's Gibson did not challenge earmark claim, much less inform viewers that McCain promoted a falsehood
• AP doesn't challenge Huckabee's claim that Palin "got more votes" than Biden, despite having previously called it a "whopper"
• Limbaugh continues to repeat falsehood that Obama favors "infanticide"

Item Summaries:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809040019

Attacks, praise, stretch truth at GOP convention, By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press WriterWed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

It's been argued for quite some time that the Rogue Republican strategy is to target an opponents strong points. That's always struck me as a bit illogical. While that may well be the consequence, the purpose is very probably something else.

That something else, I'm now quite sure, is to distract attention from a Republican candidate's weakness by going on the offense and then, by charging that any response is mere retaliation, managing to take the issue itself off the table.

The latest "community organizer" bit would seem to bear my hypothesis out.

As was to be expected, the Obama campaign took exception to the denigration of Obama's stint as a community organizer. Indeed, the campaign sent out an immediate response making the case that organizing our communities is something valuable in which all grassroots Democrats are involved, and proud of it.

Which is fine, but it misses the point of the attack. Community development is an issue on which Republicans have been vulnerable for over twenty years for the simple reason that they have consistently abused the program to promote their electoral aspirations. The last thing that Palin Person wants to talk about is community development dollars, largely because, despite every effort to transform the federal dollars into economic development pork, community needs and desires continue to claim a chunk.

SOURCE: Truthout.org

Palin Faces Laundry List of Complications, Tuesday 02 September 2008

by: Matt Apuzzo, The Associated Press

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the Senate's longest-serving Republican was indicted in July. New evidence suggests Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin may have realized tainted income as well.

Washington - GOP vice presidential pick Sarah Palin accepted at least $4,500 in campaign contributions in the same fundraising scheme at the center of a public corruption scandal that led to the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens.

The contributions, made during Palin's failed 2002 bid to become Alaska's lieutenant governor, were not illegal for her to accept. But they show how Palin, a self-proclaimed reformer who has bucked Stevens and his allies, is nonetheless a product of a political system in Alaska now under the cloud of an ongoing FBI investigation.

It's the latest in a string of revelations that have forced John McCain's campaign to defend his choice and the thoroughness of the background check of Palin, 44, a little-known governor who is new to the national stage. Palin stunned delegates at the GOP convention Monday when she announced through the McCain campaign that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.

The McCain Campaign has released an interview with Orson Swindle, another one of McCain's buds and roommates from the Hanoi Hilton, which makes it pretty clear that it wasn't five and a half years in solitary, after all.

Is this another example of a "limited hangout" which Wikipedia tells us

A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality by withholding key facts is protecting a deeper crime and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

Orson Swindle has, of course, come to McCain's assistance for quite a while. For example, during the 2000 primary campaign, when a veteran stood up and charged that McCain had led the veterans down during his years in the House and Senate, it's Orson Swindle who was reported to have called Tom Burch and told him

"We will destroy you."

So, there's some reason to speculate that McCain's buds (in addition to Swindle, Col. George E. "Bud" Day, another roommate at the Hilton, is always willing to lend a hand) were prepared to illuminate George W. Bush's meagre military record in 2000, but then the campaign was pretty much lost when the vets turned out in South Carolina.

We already know from his own admission that, instead of remaining silent, he lied to his Vietnamese captors in giving them the names of football players, instead of the names of his fellow pilots. We also know that, subsequently, in the retelling of the story, he changed the identity of the teams, depending on where he was telling it.

Apparently, Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church has a way with words. The Los Angeles Times, in a story on the upcoming Civil Forum for Obama and McCain at the megachurch, reports his assessment of the presumptive major party nominees as follows:

"America has a choice. It's not between a stud and a dud this year," Warren said. "Both of these men care about America. My job is to let them share their views."

His use of the word "choice" alone may have been enough to set some evangelicals on edge and prompt them to protest the Saturday evening event (slated to be covered by CNN at 5:00PM, PDT and streamed on the web, courtesy of KDOC and the Orange County Register).

Yeah, I know you don't want to hear it. Some people here would rather sit around and snicker at George W. Bush saying something else stupid--this time while he's in China. Think Progess has a pretty good summary, including the video that was pulled from YouTube because of a third party ownership claim.

Worthless stuff is usually not worth claiming. But, that's not the only reason I'm going to give you an opportunity to reconsider whether what Bush said was stupid or part of an orchestrated campaign. That NBC interrupted its coverage of the Olympics with this vignette may or may not be significant.

Let's go back to earlier in the week.

It seems that on Thursday, Barack Obama answered a question from a little girl which NewsBusters.org covered thusly:

People on the internet are no different from others in jumping to the conclusion that when they consider something offensive, it was intended to offend them. So, for example, there's considerable outrage over the little video, attributed to the McCain campaign, which insinuates that the Democratic presumptive nominee for President of the United States is arrogant, while the Republican presumptive nominee presumes to know for a fact that the Obama campaign is playing the "race card." Many who have seen the video have been inclined to conclude that making sport of their candidate is designed to somehow dampen their interest and support.

But what if it's not? What if, what is often identified as a Rovian tactic, actually plays to the Republican base and whoever else is inclined to feel resentment?

Just because it's good to know what's being discussed, have a look at the video over the fold.

If the embed link no longer seems to work; the Youtube URL should.

John McCain is a small, petty man who takes comfort in other people’s distress. How do I know that? It’s what I oberved during his so-called “Town Hall” at the Rochester, New Hampshire Opera House this week.

SOURCE: marcambinder.theatlantic.com

GOP Prepares To Scale Back Aggressive Anti-Voter Fraud Campaigns

25 Jun 2008 02:30 pm

John McCain's election strategists plan to tone down the Republicans' traditionally aggressive and public campaign against potential voter fraud, several Republicans familiar with the situation say.

The strategists and consultants all would speak only on the condition that their names and affiliations not be used because they were not permitted to divulge the information, they did not want to disclose internal deliberations, and because the issue is still being discussed within the party.

Sources with direct knowledge of the coordinated Republican effort this year say that high-ranking Republicans, including some within McCain's campaign, are convinced that GOP efforts in 2004 were damaging.

"Spreading 10,000 lawyers around the country and announcing a challenge to 40,000 new registrants in Ohio was counterproductive," a Republican familiar with the situation said. The Republican said that many within the party believed that then-Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's efforts to tighten provisional ballot rules ahead of the 2004 may have increased Democratic turnout because it convinced Democrats that Republicans were trying to disenfranchise voters.

While I don't subscribe to the characterization of political candidates as opponents or contestants, like gladiators in the Roman arena, there's little question that many of the promoters and financial supporters of candidates are basically antagonistic to the interests of the general public the candidates are proposing to serve.

So, as a progressive Democrat, I'm not at all reluctant to consider the Republican proponents of authoritarian, patriarchal dictatorship as my enemies. Moreover, since a significant number of the American people have awakened to the fact that, instead of having their modest expectations and patriotic values honored, the people they elected to represent and serve them have engaged in the grossest deceptions and dishonored the country, it's clear that there's a small class of people who now have a lot to lose. It would be a mistake to think they will give up power easily.

SOURCE: consortiumnews.com

Make No Mistake: McCain's a Neocon, By Robert Parry, June 8, 2008

Since clinching the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain has sought to hide the forest of his neoconservative alignment with George W. Bush amid the trees of details, such as stressing differences over military tactics used in Iraq.

But the larger reality should be clear: McCain is a hard-line neoconservative who buys into Bush’s “preemptive war” theories abroad and his concept of an all-powerful “unitary executive” at home.

From McCain’s pre-Iraq invasion speeches to his campaign’s recent embrace of Bush’s imperial presidency, American voters should realize that if they choose John McCain, they will be locking in at least four more years of war with much of the Islamic world while selling out the Founders’ vision of a democratic Republic where no one is above the law.

First of all, let me explain that I happen to believe that there were terrorists in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After all, retired CIA personnel have admitted to working with some members of the opposition to Saddam and helping them construct car bombs to validate their ability to organize and plan. And there's little doubt that the United States sent in special operations forces whose endeavors were, no doubt, considered terroristic by some people.

What we are now certain of, and which our own intelligence agencies have verified, is that, as Saddam asserted, there were no Islamic or al Qaeda terrorists active in Iraq during his tenure in office. That he had no weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal either is another matter, since he pretended to have them as a bluff. The truth is that Iraq didn't have what the Bush/Cheney administration claimed in either case. And yet the claim about the terrorists persists. Why?

The answer came to me the other day in a discussion of the usefullness of the Congress approving programs and making appropriations of money for functions that Bush/Cheney is not inclined to carry out. I was reminded that, under the Constitution, the executive is constrained to carry out only those activities that have been specifically permitted and funded in the law.

BY Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

SOURCE: Salon.com

Newest McCain official: President has "near dictatorial powers"

Bill Kristol today proudly announces that one of his Weekly Standard staff members, Michael Goldfarb, was just named the Deputy Communications Director of the McCain campaign. Last April, this newest McCain official participated in a conference call with former Senator George Mitchell, during which Mitchell advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Afterwards, this is what Goldfarb wrote about what he thinks are the powers the President possesses in our country:

Mitchell's less than persuasive answer (to whether withdrawal timetables "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?"): "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government."

True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

As I noted at the time:

SOURCE: Huffington Post

All the President's Nazis (Real and Imagined):An Open Letter to Bush

Posted May 15, 2008 | 07:48 PM (EST)

By Larisa Alexandrovna

Dear Mr. Bush,

Your speech on the Knesset floor today was not only a disgrace; it was nothing short of treachery. Worse still, your exploitation of the Holocaust in a country carved out of the wounds of that very crime, in order to strike a low blow at American citizens whose politics differs from your own is unforgivable and unpardonable. Let me remind you, Mr. Bush, of your words today:

SOURCE: Democrats.com

McCain Dodges Phone Jamming Connections in NH Speech
May 22, 2006

This morning, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain returned to New Hampshire, but failed to explain why his New Hampshire State Director filed a letter with the court urging leniency on convicted phone-jammer James Tobin. Senator McCain failed to even mention the criminal campaign to disenfranchise New Hampshire voters in his remarks, despite the fact that one of his senior strategists was Tobin's supervisor at the time of the conspiracy.

Last week, Republican lobbyist Mike Dennehy, Senator McCain's New Hampshire State Director, sent a letter to Judge Steven McAuliffe that asked the judge for a lenient sentence and called Tobin the "the most ethical man I know" despite the fact that Tobin was convicted of multiple felonies over his role in the 2002 phone-jamming crime. The letter was the only such letter from any Granite Stater.

SOURCE: consortiumnews.com

McCain and the 'Unitary Executive'

By Robert Parry
May 13, 2008

If John McCain wins the presidency – and gets to appoint one or more U.S. Supreme Court justices – America’s 220-year experiment as a democratic Republic living under the principle that “no man is above the law” may come to an end.

To put the matter differently, if a President McCain replaces one of the moderate justices with another Samuel Alito – as McCain has vowed to do – then Justice Department lawyer John Yoo’s extreme vision of an all-powerful Executive could well become the new law of the land.

On May 6 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, during a speech aimed at appeasing conservatives, McCain promised to appoint justices in the mold of George W. Bush’s selections, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, expanding the court’s right-wing faction that also includes Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.