Monkeywrenching the political process

[unixronin]

With the popular vote in the just-past election so close, one could be forgiven for wondering how much the election may have been influenced by what amounts to an elaborate practical joke.

Of course, the article points out that the perpetrators observed that the news media could easily have exposed their hoax had they put the least effort into checking their facts.  But in this last election, by all appearances the media didn't WANT to check their facts, as long as the report involved something damaging to the McCain-Palin campaign.  Can you imagine the witch-hunt had Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish chosen Barack Obama as their target?  Ah, but wait, we don't have to imagine — we have the persecution of Joe the Plumber as an example.

When I consider how one-sided the reporting of this past election campaign was, and yet how close the popular vote was, I find it hard to avoid speculating that in this Presidential election, the people of the United States did not elect Barack Obama; the news media did.

Comments

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Palin *did* screw up her comprehension of the vice presidency.

No, she didn't. And if you don't know what Biden said:
I don't know what Biden said, but I find it hard to believe that a senator would not know the VP's role.

Then it's impossible to take seriously that you know what Palin said. Considering their two answers were right after the other. There's no reasonable way you read Palin's answer and didn't read Biden's.

Unless you're proving his original point.

I find it hard to believe that a senator would not know the VP's role.

So did I, but he didn't. Plus he's a lawyer.

I don't know what Obama said, but I find it hard to believe that a former editor of Harvard Law Review doesn't know how many states there are.

Then why are you commenting instead of looking up what he said?

So your "feelings" outweigh facts? Again, you're proving unixronin's point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

How can you dare to refute facts with "Well, I just can't believe that. I just can't. It couldn't have happened."

The media did scrutinize Obama's past, and found no story.

Considering how much you've admitted that you don't know, you might want to back off there on how much you know about that much.

They gave no scrutiny to his years on the Board of the Joyce Foundation - as noted - when they were buying law review issues. They didn't go into his Indonesian years, when he was schooled as a Muslim. (Hey, I don't care. I went to a Lutheran church when I was that age, I'm not Lutheran.) But his campaign claimed that it never happened, and it did.

They barely mentioned Tony Rezko..
Bernadette Dorhn.
His prior campaigns.

What party did he originally win office as a member of?

everything he wrote in his autobiography checked out.

I think your lack of research is showing again.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Plus he's a lawyer.

You know, this actually jogged a thought in my brain earlier. And I just now got around to posting it.



You see, I've heard lots of people say "Obama could/would never do anything to undermine the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, he's a Constitutional law scholar/professor!"

This is a complete non-sequitur. There is absolutely nothing about being a Constitutional law scholar or professor that says he wouldn't attack or attempt to subvert the Constitution. What's the first thing you do when planning a military operation against an enemy target?

That's right. You study your enemy and your target.

Sure, I have no problem accepting that Obama has studied the Constitution. Any argument that says that automatically proves he believes in it is sheer nonsense. It proves no such thing.

Granted, it doesn't prove he is hostile to it either. But when one weighs his words in his Presidential election campaign against his documented and provable past actions as a private citizen, as an Illinois state Senator and as a US Senator, his actions speak far, far louder than his words.