Why wont the media be honest and ask these questions on a poll?

1.) Do you feel that Bush is trying to do the right thing, but not AGGRESSIVELY ENOUGH?  (Have NEVER heard this asked)

2.)  Regardless of the way things are going(GWOT Economy etc..) do you think the Democrats would do a better job?

And FINALLY

3.)  Do you know exactly what the Desmocrats plan is for...anything?

There you go CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, BBC, NYT, BG, LATIMES, WSJ, ZOGBY, etc...   Do your jobs, and ask these questions!

In the midst of a period when the news media have been aggressively delivering bad news for Republicans and conservatives, NBC News decided to take a poll which found the news agenda has had an impact. On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams indirectly acknowledged the media's role, asking Tim Russert: “On the big issue of Iraq, since we last polled on it, we had that Defense intelligence report come out and now this Woodward book. It's all over the media. What are the findings in the numbers?" (Indeed, Williams was so enthused about Woodward's book that he led his newscast last Thursday by plugging CBS's interview with Woodward a day before the CBS Evening News got to it.) Russert relayed how the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found that when asked “what effect is the war in Iraq having on war on terror?”, only 32 percent said “helping” while 46 percent replied “hurting.” Russert emphasized: “Measure that to one month ago and look at the change: A 14 percent increase in the number of people -- from 32 to 46 -- who believe the Iraq war is hurting the war on terror.” On job approval, Bush's is down to 39 percent in the poll.

CBS News reporter Gloria Borger on Tuesday night broached a subject which political correctness would advise she avoid. In a CBS Evening News story about the latest developments in the Mark Foley case, she relayed the view that Foley's sexual orientation helped protect him from scrutiny: “There's a secondary story here, one that rank and file Republicans will only talk about privately: That it was common knowledge that former Congressman Foley was gay and not discreet. One senior House Republican tells CBS that there's a lot of anger at what he describes as 'a network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.'” Borger concluded: “Republicans worry that their voters could well decide to sit this election out if they're disgusted, and that could mean the party loses control of the House.”

Well known liberal Rosie O’Donnell used the shooting at an Amish school in Pennsylvania as a springboard to promote gun control. O’Donnell, who famously sparred with Tom Selleck (video), stated on Tuesday's edition of ABC's "The View" that the event should spur tighter restrictions:

O’Donnell: "I think the horror of imagining six to thirteen-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

This quickly led to an exchange with the program’s token conservative, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in which O’Donnell asserted that there is no right to own a gun:

Hasselbeck: "So you can’t- You can't take way the right to, to bear arms."

O’Donnell: "Well, it’s not really a right. There’s debate as to what that-"

Hasselbeck: "It is a right. It’s in our Constitution. It’s the Second Amendment."

O’Donnell: "Well, let’s talk instead of yell."

Hasselbeck: "I’m not yelling."

Network morning shows stayed on the Mark Foley scandal on Tuesday. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all harped on the "conservative" Washington Times editorial calling for Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign. (The Times is conservative, but no one expects the networks to describe the liberal newspapers -- or themselves -- with an ideological label.) ABC's Brian Ross came on strong, suggesting the Republican problem was "one of hypocrisy, talking tough about going after pedophiles on the Internet but not doing much about it when it comes to one of their own." CBS's Hannah Storm wondered if the scandal would "take down the Republican leadership in the House." NBC's Tim Russert used a rare P-word quoting a panicked Republican: "If there's a perception that we overlooked perversion in order to hold on to power we are finished." And CNN brought on a braying Paul Begala and found Democrats were "particularly enjoying the fact" that House campaign chairman Thomas Reynolds was ensnared in the controversy.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe appeared on Tuesday's "American Morning" to challenge CNN anchor Miles O’Brien over a previous report on the Senator’s global warming position. Specifically, this was in reference to a piece on the September 28 edition of the program that portrayed Inhofe’s skepticism on the subject as less than noble. O'Brien had asserted:

"Now we should point out in a recent five-year period, Senator Inhofe received more than $850,000 in donations from the oil and gas industries, his leading contributor. Inhofe challenged the media to get this story right, as he put it, but when we asked for an interview several times, we were told he is too busy to speak to us this week."

Inhofe did appear this week and he came ready to challenge the CNN host:

INHOFE: "Well, Miles, it's nice to be with you. I know you don't believe it, but it is nice to be with you....You know why? You always smile. So many of these extremists out there, they are mad all the time. But you're not; you smile. In fact, when you're cutting my guts out for two minutes last week, you smiled all the way through it. And I appreciate that."

Paul Chesser at the American Spectator blog notes an inaccurate, and purposefully ironic, AP headline. The headline creates a phantom event that is found no where in the body of the piece.

There's an Associated Press story out on the wire with the mis-titled headline, "Bush: Democrats shouldn't be trusted to run Congress." Of course since it's the AP, it's running on many news Web sites and will run in hundreds of print newspapers in the next day or so, with near-identical variations of the headline. ABC's affiliate here in Raleigh even puts the "Democrats shouldn't be trusted" in quotation marks, as though the president had literally uttered that statement.

I bring this up only because nowhere in the article is President Bush quoted saying such a thing. Maybe he did, but it's not in the story. In a different political environment (that is, pre-Foley) that headline would have been perfectly acceptable, because in the article the president is in effect saying Democrats can't be trusted with national security. But now that Foley has been exposed and the heat is on Congress, that headline portrays the Republicans as (even more) hypocritical by calling Democrats untrustworthy.

ABC, 10/03

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges,
which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54,
to two different boys under the age of 18.

This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp.

Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too

The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms. ...

Who 'obtained' these messages and why have they been 'saved' until now?

JDW

Former attorney general John Ashcroft was invited on this morning's Today show to promote his book Never Again but he found himself talking about somebody else's book instead. In the 8:30 half hour NBC's Meredith Vieira assaulted Ashcroft with excerpts from Bob Woodward's latest book and even went on to question Ashcroft about the "moral basis of the war on terrorism," and asserted, "Many people feel that our civil liberties have been chipped away bit by bit since, since 9/11."

Teasing the segment Matt Lauer called Ashcroft, "a very controversial figure," and in her opening Vieira noted he was "a lightning rod for criticism." Hmm, I wonder how many times Today referred to Janet Reno in those terms?

Foley, Pirro, Allen - Political Set-Ups?

Written by Doc Farmer
Tuesday, October 03, 2006

File this article under "Things That Make You Go Hmmm...."

First of all, let me make my meaning plain -- Former House Representative Mark Foley is a bastard. He's a scumbag. He's a sleazy pervert. He's a disgrace. I don't care if he laid a finger on any congressional pages or not. His Instant Messages were disgusting, and he had no business using his position of power to "flirt" with underage boys (or girls, if he were so inclined).

I do, however, have to ask this question. Why did the revelations take so long to be released? And why, particularly, now?

Apparently, these interchanges between Foley and a certain unnamed youth happened a long while back. At first, I heard only about the e-mail messages. I looked at them, and was singularly unimpressed. It wasn't lewd, lascivious, or perverted as far as I could determine. A few were a bit odd, but that was it.

Then I read the IMs. These were sickening. But they raised questions in my mind. How many people keep IM records? What systems actually record them? Why would anybody want to record them?

Well, the fact is somebody did. The Instant Messages were apparently written as long as three years ago! Yet nothing was done about this for many months. Until five weeks before an election. And on a Friday afternoon, just in time for plenty of analysis by all the "talking heads" political programs. Suddenly, all of the sordid details were immediately available for the world. At that point, Foley resigned. While he was right to do so (probably the only decent thing that jerk did), I have to wonder at the appearance of manufactured serendipity.

Oh, and you may also have heard about Jeanine Pirro. She was running for a Senate seat against the Hildebeast, but that didn't last very long. So, she started going after a state seat instead of federal -- Attorney General of New York State, if I'm not mistaken. However, she has an Achilles Heel in her past and present -- in the form of her husband. Apparently, he's a jerk and a jailbird and a philanderer. So, she has a quiet chat with Bernie Kerik (who used to work for Rudy Giuliani), to ask about whether she should bug her own personal property to see if hubby's been doing the mattress mambo with someone other than her. Suddenly, there is a great hue and cry over her asking such questions while taking no action. Nobody seems to be concerned that the conversation between her and Kerik was bugged, though. Nor do they seem to be asking why they were being bugged.

And then there's George Allen, who is running for another Senate seat. Suddenly, his opponent is bringing up claims of racism and Allen's use of the "N" word in the past. Allen's been in plenty of elections prior to this most recent run. No word, no hint of racism has ever appeared prior to this. Oh, and by the way, I don't see the term "macaca" as racist. If Allen wanted to be racist, he would have called that jerk with the camera "Apu Nahasapeemapetilon." Assuming he was a fan of "The Simpsons," and assuming that he could pronounce it, of course.

All of these things have happened within a couple of weeks.

By the way, Allen's opponent, James Webb, allegedly yelled the "N" word at folks in San Diego in his earlier years, until he and his fellow buddies were caught one time and had seven kinds of crap beaten out of them by a group of men who were the target of their racist tirade. Nobody seems to be asking the same questions of Webb that they are of Allen.

Now, I'm not heavily into conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, I do have to wonder about such a flush of "coincidence." All coming in a very close time frame. All having to do with items which we are NOT yet sure are crimes, if at all (and yes, as disgusting as Foley's actions are, we are not sure if any LAWS were broken yet -- although if his actions weren't illegal, they bloody well should have been!)

And one other coincidence. All of them were rep/con/tairs (Republicans for our friends in Rio Linda).

Political sleaze is nothing new, of course. Nevertheless, the impression being put forward in the MSM is that ONLY the rep/con/tairs are capable of it. All at the same time, I might add -- very closely tied to the upcoming election.

While Foley resigned, and rightly so, there are many lib/dem/soc/commies who have committed illicit and illegal acts (or have been accused of same) and continue along with their political lives as if almost nothing has changed. The first modern "intern" scandal, the Congressional Page scandal of 1983, was committed by Gerry Studds (D- Massachusetts) and Daniel Crane (R-Illinois).

Gerry Studds didn't apologize, and didn't repent his actual acts of sexual intercourse with an underage male page. Nevertheless, he kept his seat (even after turning his back on the Congress while their bill of censure was read), and was re-elected several times. Crane apologized for having sexual intercourse with an underage female page, and was voted out the next year.

Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) was paying a male prostitute/boyfriend out of his own pocket (which, by the way, was filled by the pay that you and I provided via our taxes), and the boyfriend/prostitute was running a brothel out of Frank's basement. Barney is still in office.

William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) had about $100 grand stuffed in his freezer. He is currently under investigation for a number of crimes, but the most he's had to "suffer" is the removal from a House committee. Jefferson is still in office.

Patrick Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) got messed up on booze and pills and rammed into a security cordon with his car. He denied it, lied about it, and then decided to "get help" with an addiction problem and dodged the political bullet. Kennedy is still in office.

Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) violated House security, refused three calls for her to stop, and then SLUGGED A COP! She cried "racism" and did not offer an actual apology for her actions -- just how her actions were "interpreted." McKinney is still in office (although, thankfully, her constituency have voted her out in the primary earlier this year).

The lib/dem/soc/commies have been trying EVERYTHING possible to oust their rep/con/tair opponents. They've lied, they've misdirected, and they've even aided and abetted the release of classified documents in a time of war.

It would not surprise me one whit if these "revelations" were part of an overall coordinated lib/dem/soc/commie campaign to smear their opponents in order for them to regain power. They can't seem to regain power with honest debate. They can't seem to regain power with honest elections, from photo-ID'd voters with American citizenship. So, dig up the dirt and start shoveling the sh*t. And start demanding investigations of the House rep/con/tair leadership with a "what did they know and when did they know it" point of view. I wonder if they're mixing the tar and plucking the feathers in anticipation.

By the way, have you noticed how quickly the "Clinton Loses His Temper" story has died, since Foley's illicit story has surfaced? Despite the fact that it was proven that Clinton lied in that interview? Indeed, according to Oliver North, Clinton actually violated the law by targeting an assassination of bin Laden while three Presidential Orders were in place which prohibited such actions. No word yet on whether anyone is demanding an investigation. I'm not holding my breath.

No matter what the timing, Foley's actions were disgusting and, very hopefully, illegal -- I say hopefully, because I'd like to see anybody who abuses their power in this fashion to be thrown in jail for a very long time.

Even so, I have to seriously question the circumstances under which this and other politically-motivated stories have found the light of day. Or more accurately, the spotlight of a very slanted lib/dem/soc/commie-oriented Mainstream Media.

Like I said, "Things That Make You Go Hmmm...."

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24078

Where is ABC’s Brian Ross Knew of Foley E-mail Messages Last August

I haven’t posted much about the Foley Follies since this scandal erupted because I wanted to get a clearer picture of what exactly was going on.

As October Surprises break there is a tendency for the press and various political entities to hype up the leading story while neglecting the various stories behind the story.

Usually by the time the story has run its course the full picture is brushed aside in the wake of the lead. The damage is done and the press has moved on to the next item of the day.

NewsBusters gives us the opportunity to look beneath the scandal and dissect the way the media approaches these stories in real time. This post is my take.

Foley is gone. That’s good. If any laws were broken then I hope he gets what is coming to him. Lock him up; throw away the key. The same goes for anyone who is shown to have covered it up.

However, the Democrat and MSM attempts to paint this as a full blown Republican scandal is transparent and obvious. I find it hard to believe that these events just happened to unfold in a perfectly timed fashion a month before Congressional elections. Whoa, what are the chances?!

If I was an odds maker I would have bet on this sort of thing happening.

Remember when the AP ran the bogus story about the Crowd booing when President Bush annonunced that Bill Clinton was ill? There was no booing and the report created a firestorm in the blogsphere. Faced with an onslaught from bloggers, the AP was forced to retract the story.

The Guardian's Jonathan Freeland was caught in the reverse when he claimed there was no applause in response to this statement by PM Blair at the Labor Party conference:

"So when Blair said that a withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan would be "a craven act of surrender", he said it to silence."

When I first saw this article this morning, I asked my daughter to pinch me. But, it was still there. I then asked her to slap me. No change. Finally, smelling salts. Alas, it was still on my computer screen, and from the Washington Post no less: “The Redder They Are, The Harder They Fall; Republicans More Damaged by Scandals.”

Better prepare yourselves for an alternate reality, folks, because the shocks came early and often in this piece (emphasis mine throughout): “Sex scandals involving politicians are as old as Thomas Jefferson, but the outcome seems to depend on which party you represent. In recent years, for the most part, Democrats have been able to survive their sordid escapades while Republicans have paid with their political lives.”

Can’t be the Washington Post, right? Checking that link about now? The article miraculously continued after briefly discussing the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley (R-Florida):

It is beyond easy – it is mandatory – to denounce Congressman Mark Foley for his sexually charged electronic mail and Internet messages to teenage males who worked as pages in the House of Representatives. He was right to resign. I hope he’s prosecuted.

It is also beyond easy to recognize how the Democrats have decided to make national political hay out of this ugly sex scandal – as far as we know, a sex talk scandal. On Monday morning, the network news shows were predicting excitedly that this could be a killer issue for Democrats.

NBC anchor Brian Williams was criticized for skipping out on the Congressional Medal of Honor ceremony that he had agreed to MC. He had another engagement: a two-minute appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Reports the Boston Herald:

“NBC Nightly News” nabob Brian Williams came under fire yesterday after he reportedly beat a hasty retreat from his MC duties at the Congressional Medal of Honor Society soiree in Boston to appear on “Saturday Night Live.”

One event participant griped to the Track that the newsie “was there for the reception, then kicked off the program around 7:30 and was out of there by 8:30.”

The BBC's Greg Palast says, "unlike our President he [Chavez] was elected". No bias there!

Today's starter: The latest Rasmussen poll says the Senate is a toss-up, meanwhile, the sports betting sites I mentioned earlier are trading GOP House retention a good deal lower than before. Who will control Congress in 2007?

I'm also pleased to welcome our latest NB sponsor, HistoryShots. They make attractive posters tracking various historical moments such as the emergence of political parties and the race to land on the moon.

Monday's online chat sessions with Washington Post reporters found some typical Democrat-defending responses. The daily political chat, hosted Monday by Shailagh (that's Shay-la) Murray, included a defense of the woman the Democrats already call "Speaker Pelosi" on the Bill Jefferson scandal:

Arlington, Va.: Do you think Nancy Pelosi will ever understand that investigating House members for "crimes" must come equally hard upon all Democrats as well? Has she done anything to investigate William Jefferson in Lousiana or blocked him from being on the ballot? Did Nancy Pelosi have as much anger in the 1980's when a Republican and a Democrat in Congress treated pages inappropriately? How does Nancy Pelosi feel about Mel Watts, who served time in prison for sex crimes with a minor? Why is he a member of Congress? Sounds like Pelosi is a hypocrite, or do you think that term is too harsh?

When it comes to the Foley scandal, the MSM is definitely keeping its eyes on the prize: the Democratic takeover of Congress. In this NB item, I described how the New York Times editorialized this morning that it doesn't care what else flows from the scandal. So long as the Dems re-take power, the Foley flameout "will have done its job."

Over at 'Today' this morning, Matt Lauer fretted that the fallout might not come fast enough to swing the election to the Dems. Interviewing Tim Russert, Lauer said "the most cynical scenario, the worst-case scenario for Republicans is that they kept this under wraps because Foley's seat was important to holding control of the House at a time when the entire control issue is up for grabs in the mid-term elections." Matt didn't bother painting a more innocent scenario.