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.
no subject
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.