Tag Archives: politics

MRC’s Tim Graham Addresses ‘Mainstream Media Meltdown’ on Fox & Friends

MRC Director of Media Analysis Tim Graham appeared on Saturday morning’s Fox & Friends to discuss the emerging examples of liberal “mainstream” media meltdown over the Democrats being abandoned by the voters – and how the public is now a collection of “spoiled” brats , according to liberal talk show host Bill Press. Fox also highlighted Washington Post columnist/blogger Ezra Klein suggesting the voters are “schizophrenic” when they say they trust Democrats more on issues like the economy, and then say they’ll be voting for Republicans in the fall. What the Post actually found is the full sample trusted Democrats more, 42 to 34, but among likely voters it was 40 percent trusted Republicans more to 39 percent Democrat. Tim suggested Press and others were already sounding life the aftermath of the 1994 elections, when then-ABC anchorman issued a radio commentary denouncing the country being a “nation of uncontrolled two-year-old rage.” (Audio here .) As Tim said, Press was so unhappy with the current mood of the electorate that he said neither Abraham Lincoln nor Franklin Roosevelt could govern this bitter crowd. Democrats are starting to look like losers, and perhaps dramatic losers. This could be a remarkable year to mock the folks who suggested “reality has a liberal bias.” The shoe is on the other foot, and liberals look like the ones denying reality, insisting the economy is terrific, the Gulf will soon by squeaky-clean, and their political fortunes are fantastic.

Original post:
MRC’s Tim Graham Addresses ‘Mainstream Media Meltdown’ on Fox & Friends

Matthews to Tea Party: Tear Down Those Racist Signs and Then I’ll Believe You!

Chris Matthews, on Monday’s Hardball, actually reported on two different Tea Party organizations condemning Mark Williams, of Tea Party Express, for penning a racially charged satire, however Matthews wasn’t impressed, as he questioned the sincerity of the Tea Party movement’s commitment to fighting discrimination, and demanded that they do more to remove “racist signs at the next Tea Party rally.” After reciting some of Williams’ “fictional letter” the Hardball host then noted that both the National Tea Party Federation and the Tea Party Nation chastised Williams, but Matthews wasn’t buying it as he commanded tea partiers at the next rally to “Reach over, grab the [racist] sign and tear it out of the guy’s hands, then I’ll believe you.” The following was aired during the Sideshow segment of the July 19 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Next the Tea Party reaches its tipping point. It started when Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams wrote a fictional letter in defense of slavery to President Abraham Lincoln. Quote, these are his words, quote: “We coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to the whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much of us to ask of us colored people.” Well that’s, Williams called that satire, the leaders of the National Tea Party Federation called it trouble. Yesterday they expelled Williams. The sentiment continued today. The Tea Party Nation, the group that hosted the big party convention down in Nashville has just put out a statement saying they have quote, “zero tolerance, a zero tolerance policy against racism and they will ban any members who show themselves to be racist.” Okay I’m gonna wait to see just one of those Tea Party people pull down one of those racist signs at the next Tea Party rally. I’m just waiting. Reach over, grab the sign and tear it out of the guy’s hands, then I’ll believe you.

See the original post here:
Matthews to Tea Party: Tear Down Those Racist Signs and Then I’ll Believe You!

Apple’s Solution To Single Problem Opens Another One

As the problem of Apple’s iPhone 4 antenna has been spreading like virus lately, Apple can’t just sit back and just listen to the hundreds of freaking clients’ complaint. The company has offered an iPhone software update that eventually corrects the way that different versions of the handset display signal strength. Apple discovered in their investigation that the formula it had been using to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display was “totally wrong”. The formula regularly displayed two more bars of strength than it should. This has been the content of the newsletter they released. iPhone users would connect their phone to Mac or their PC to update their device. However, comments has been flooding that after they update their device, the handset’s operating system made their phone far more likely to drop calls. Their phone suddenly reboots in the middle of a conversation. Apple will hold a press conference at 1800 BST that aims to talk about the problem that has been going on. If you currently own an iPhone now, how does the update change your device? Feel free to leave your comments here. Apple’s Solution To Single Problem Opens Another One is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Andrea Mitchell: House Democrats’ Spat With Gibbs is ‘Unfortunate’

MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell is apparently a tad disappointed that the conflict between Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Robert Gibbs festered as much as it has recently. While talking to Politico’s Jonathan Martin about yesterday’s meeting at the White House between House Democrats and Obama administration officials, Mitchell lamented that the four-day uproar was “a little bit unfortunate.” “You think they didn’t need a four-day story about their infighting?” Mitchell asked sounding slightly annoyed that things escalated to that level for the Democrats. Mitchell analyzed the situation as an awkward statement that needlessly morphed into a full-blown conflict. “It just seems like Robert just answered a question on Meet the Press, and the Democrats decided to make a federal case out of it.” “But better now Andrea, in July, than October,” Martin reassured her. A transcript of the segment, which aired on July 15, at 1:25 p.m. EDT, is as follows: ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC anchor: Do you think that they sort of kissed and made up with “Brother Gibbs”? JONATHAN MARTIN, senior political reporter, Politico: Well I don’t think that Robert Gibbs was actually at this meeting, but I think the consensus that you hear today from Democrats, on both sides of Pennsylvania Ave., is that they are ready to move on and try and get beyond this, and try to hang together here for these next four months. MITCHELL: You think they didn’t need a four-day story about their infighting? A little bit unfortunate. It seems like, you know, Robert just answered a question on Meet the Press, and the Democrats decided to make a federal case out of it. Anyway. MARTIN: But better now, Andrea, in July, than October, certainly for them. MITCHELL: Exactly.

Here is the original post:
Andrea Mitchell: House Democrats’ Spat With Gibbs is ‘Unfortunate’

‘Dallas’ Star Larry Hagman Refuses to Let Facts Get In the Way Of Enviro-Propaganda

When news recently broke that the 78 year-old actor Larry Hagman had surfaced in California promoting solar energy as means of staving off the end of civilization, I must admit I was somewhat taken aback. Prior to this, the last time anyone had heard from Hagman was when he was part of a “who done it” spoof which TV viewers watched in an attempt to ascertain “Who Shot J.R.?” Now he looks like just so many other Hollywood figures that miss the limelight and therefore come out and say something crazy in order to get a little attention: Either that or he actually believes the things he said in the interview for the Oregonian . (After reading the interview a couple of times, I personally hope he’s just talking crazy to get attention because if he really believes the things he said, Hollywood has hit a new low.) In the interview, Hagman takes Sarah Palin’s famous “Drill, baby, Drill” and augments it to fit solar energy by changing it to “Shine, baby, Shine.” He describes solar power as “an inexhaustible source of energy” which he uses to provide electricity for his home. To this point, Hagman’s words are reasonable: If someone wants to provide power for their home via solar panels rather than conventional electricity that’s their choice (although I would be interested to know what the backup plan is for densely overcast or stormy days, as well as whether the panels themselves are hail resistant). But Hagman soon threw reasonableness out the window and tried to advance a need for solar panels based on his belief that oil is scarce and civilization is ending. His exact words were: “When affordable oil gives out, we’re in real trouble – I mean the collapse of civilization, within 15 to 20 years.” I can only say that I was embarrassed for Hagman’s family when I read those words. The United States has enough untapped oil to meet current demand for more than one hundred years (up to 300 years in some estimates). Thus, when gasoline was $4 a gallon in 2008, even Newsweek magazine asked aloud why we weren’t drilling for more oil near the Rocky Mountains, where it is estimated that we have enough oil in shale to ” out-produce Saudi Arabia.” And I haven’t even mentioned the billions of barrels of oil that await us in ANWR or, dare I say, offshore. In all honesty, the only way “affordable oil” will cease to exist for our nation is if we lack the courage or the ingenuity to go after it, or if the market is presented with such a clear and dependable alternative to oil that the need for oil disappears altogether. So far, however, Americans are both courageous and ingenious, and the handful of Hollywood actors who put solar panels on their homes don’t represent enough market demand to change things. In the end, it seems that the actor who played an oilman in “Dallas” didn’t learn much about oil at all. Crossposted at Big Hollywood .

Read more:
‘Dallas’ Star Larry Hagman Refuses to Let Facts Get In the Way Of Enviro-Propaganda

Are The View Producers Muzzling Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck While Allowing Joy Behar Free Rein?

On June 15, 2010, View co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck declined to fight with lefist comedienne Kathy Griffin, who was appearing on that day’s show. This despite the fact that the entertainer had previously had previously slammed the conservative as a “f—ing Survivor reject.” Hasselbeck demurred, “It’s cool, we’re cool.” The host remained quiet, even as Griffin taunted her by mocking, “Bring it.”  Yet, on July 15, 2010, liberal Joy Behar showed no such restraint with conservative radio star Laura Ingraham. The two got into a heated discussion over whether wearing a burqa in society is acceptable. Behar lectured, “Then all religions subjugate women.” Earlier, Behar responded to a Ingraham joke by proclaiming, “I don’t want anybody to think you know me.” A transcript of the two exchanges can be found below: July 14, 2010 JOY BEHAR: You know what? I think it’s so wrong to do that to people. People really want their religious freedom, whether their Muslim, Jewish or Christian. And they should be allowed to wear a cross, and a star, and a burqa if they have to. LAURA INGRAHAM: But that’s different from covering your whole face, Joy. BEHAR: Why, why? That’s what they do! INGRAHAM: Why does grandma have to undo her walker at the TSA line at the airport but someone could go through fully covered up with just slits for their eyes? That’s the point of subjugation. You’re for women. BEHAR: I’m not sure they should go through security that way. They’re talking about people just walking around. INGRAHAM: Public places. Yes, yes. Public places. We go into airports. BEHAR: But they’re also saying it’s against women, that is subjugates women. INGRAHAM: It is subjugating to women. BEHAR: Then all religions subjugate women. INGRAHAM: Oh, that’s a crock. That is ridiculous. BEHAR: Are you kidding me? INGRAHAM: Lump every religion together and every facet of every religion together. I’m sorry, I wear a cross. This does not subjugate, okay? This is liberating. BEHAR: No women priests are allowed in the priesthood, for example. (Applause) INGRAHAM: Okay, notice how this has become an indictment for the Catholic Church. Why are you clapping for that? BEHAR: Wait a second. In a Jewish synagogue, the women, in orthodox, have to sit upstairs, they’re not allowed on the floor with the men. They have to wear a schriedel (sc?) to cover their heads. I mean, every religion has something. June 15, 2010 ELISABETH HASSELBECK: You’ve said things about people here that are a) untrue and b) not so funny. So do you ever feel weird like then coming here and saying, sitting here, you know, promoting things. KATHY GRIFFIN: Actually this moment is what I live for so bring it. HASSELBECK: I know. I know. (Applause) HASSELBECK: Sadly, I have a debate in my head whether feeding your curious fire there. GRIFFIN: This is how I write my act. HASSELBECK: It’s cool, we’re cool. GRIFFIN: I’m cool if you’re cool. I think it’s all for a joke. HASSELBECK: It’s all cool. GRIFFIN: Is there anything else you’d like to say, Elisabeth? Because this is just getting good.

See the article here:
Are The View Producers Muzzling Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck While Allowing Joy Behar Free Rein?

Confused Matthews: How Can South Carolina GOPers Vote for a Indian-American But Not Support a Black President?

Chris Matthews, on Wednesday’s Hardball, invited on recently defeated Republican Representative Bob Inglis to slam Matthews’ favorite targets, namely the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and after he got the requisite criticisms out of the South Carolina congressman of those entities asked him if he could explain how primary voters from his own party could nominate an Indian-American like Nikki Haley, even though they’ve “got a problem with a black president?” Matthews, clearly not grasping the concept that perhaps voters in South Carolina could cast their ballot based out of purely ideological and not racial motives, asked Inglis the following question: How do you figure your state out? It’s pretty conservative obviously. It’s Strom Thurmond country in many ways and, and it has people like DeMint pretty far over and then people like Lindsey Graham who are sort of regular conservatives. But then you nominated, your party has nominated an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley. Obviously an attractive candidate, she knows how to present herself obviously, but what’s that about? Is that just an interesting little aspect? It’s okay to be Indian-American but we’ve got a problem with this black president? What’s that about? Before Matthews ended his show on that stumper of a question, he egged on the soon to be former Representative Inglis to attack the Tea Party, Limbaugh and Palin, as seen in the following exchanges that were aired on the July 14 Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, the Tea Party has racked up big wins already in 2010. They scared Senator Arlen Specter out of the Republican primary and watched him lose as a Democrat. Former Alabama Democratic Congressman Parker Griffith did the exact opposite. He jumped into the Republican primary and lost down there. Tea Partiers ousted Senator Bob Bennett at the Republican state convention out in Utah. They ran Governor Charlie Crist right out of the Republican Senate primary in Florida. And the latest victim of the Tea Party is South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis who lost a Republican runoff just last month after getting hammered in town halls for voting for TARP and knocking down false rumors about death panels. He joins us right now. Congressman Inglis, I want to make sure everybody knows you’re not a RINO. You’ve got an 85 percent conservative record, you’ve got a five percent liberal record. You’re a conservative, right? REP. BOB INGLIS: Right, I think it’s actually 93 percent ACU rating. Yeah, yeah. MATTHEWS: Well I looked, I looked at it a couple years ago. So you’re up to date at ninety, ninety-what? INGLIS: Ninety-three percent. MATTHEWS: So you’re not conservative enough for South Carolina. INGLIS: I needed that extra seven. MATTHEWS: Oh my God! Well you told the Associated Press, quote, “I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those television and talk radio personalities and not leading us.” We’ve had a little contest here, as you know, waiting for somebody. Well, you’re a lame duck now but maybe you count. But we’ve been waiting for somebody to say “I’m not really a ditto head. I don’t really follow Rush Limbaugh’s thinking. He’s not my leader.” Are you ready to be the first? INGLIS: Well I’ll tell ya- MATTHEWS: Or are you still gonna hold back? INGLIS: I don’t, I don’t follow Rush Limbaugh’s lead. You know, when, when I found out I didn’t? I was in six years and I was out of Congress for six years and I was listening to him one day and he’s making fun of people in cars who get high fuel efficiency and I thought, you know, Rush, that’s it. I turned the radio off. MATTHEWS: Yeah. INGLIS: Because it didn’t fit with my dad who’s 87 years old. He’s my idea of conservative. He used to tell us, “Now, we gonna let off the gas at the Tarvers’ and you coast to our driveway,” because he’s a conservative. MATTHEWS: Well what happened to Teddy Roosevelt? Wasn’t he a great conservative in the Republican Party? INGLIS: Yeah, absolutely. MATTHEWS: A conservationist. INGLIS: Yeah and so my, yeah and so my thought was, you know, listen, conservatism is saving resources, and, and what Rush was further making fun of is people driving electric cars with regenerative braking. I’m thinking, if I make the investment to get up the hill with my gas, why wouldn’t I want to generate electricity coming down the hill? I’m a conservative. MATTHEWS: Rush, by the way, says a lot of things. He makes fun of anybody who tries to deal with conservation issues, which are traditionally conservative issues. He makes fun of all kinds of things. … MATTHEWS: You, you sir, strike me, as I hate to use the word, as someone who’s well-educated. I know you went to UVA Law School. Is that hurting you? Is – no I’m dead serious about this. Do you get hurt in the Republican Party now for having had a fine education? Do people think, look askance at you and say, “Oh he’s an egghead, he’s got a good degree from UVA” Is that a problem now, it’s better to be a yahoo? Well I mean to be really uneducated like Palin, to really be proud of the fact you don’t know anything? INGLIS: There, there is a sense out there that ignorance is strength. But you know ignorance really is not strength. MATTHEWS: Where did that come from? Where did that come from? INGLIS: And here’s my view. I’m ignorant of a lot of things. There are a lot of things I need to know but if I choose to remain ignorant of those things, that’s when, that’s quite a different matter. So I have a sense of how much I don’t know and I need to find out a lot of information. I think that’s what education gives you is a sense of how much you don’t know and let’s go find it out. MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of Palin’s – without getting — she seems like, I guess a nice person as a human being but the question is, is she selling herself as someone – she calls it common sense. But I think what she’s really selling is “I don’t read books. I don’t read newspapers, Katie Couric. I don’t read magazines. I don’t need information. I have common conservative sense.” What does that mean? To say you know things without having read it or learned anything? What do people know naturally? … MATTHEWS: Well, that fear that led people like Rick Perry of Texas to talk about secession, those old scare terms about race. I mean race is always an issue in America but to go back and rip that scab off? What’s that about? Why are people doing that? Is it their fear, fear of change or is it just anger or what? INGLIS: Yeah well, I think that we, what we’re finding out here that in 2010 we have not fought the final fight against the scent of racism and won. We’re still in it. We’re still dealing with that problem. We always will be, but we need to extend grace to one another and have some honesty about it, understand that we are different, but let’s find a way to extend grace and get through it, and that’s – rather than womp up those fears and drive with misinformation reactions against people because of their party or their ethnicity. That’s a real problem and it- MATTHEWS: How do you figure your state out? It’s pretty conservative obviously. It’s Strom Thurmond country in many ways and, and it has people like DeMint pretty far over and then people like Lindsey Graham who are sort of regular conservatives. But then you nominated, your party has nominated an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley. Obviously an attractive candidate, she knows how to present herself obviously, but what’s that about? Is that just an interesting little aspect? It’s okay to be Indian-American but we’ve got a problem with this black president? What’s that about?

Read the original here:
Confused Matthews: How Can South Carolina GOPers Vote for a Indian-American But Not Support a Black President?

CNN’s Ed Henry Touts Bill Clinton as ‘Best Democratic Politician’

On Wednesday’s American Morning, CNN’s Ed Henry lauded former President Clinton as ” one of the best politicians the Democrats have ever had …in the last quarter century” and touted his apparent credibility over current President Barack Obama. Henry also speculated that if “Al Gore… had used President Clinton more in 2000, he may have been president .” Substitute anchor Drew Griffin brought on the White House correspondent 26 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour to discuss the Obama White House’s intention to “aggressively use the former president on the campaign trail over the next few months. One party official familiar with the plan calls it a- quote, ‘no-brainer.'” During the second half of the segment, Griffin asked, “How can Bill Clinton do it all? I mean, he was picked by President Obama, basically, to rebuild Haiti. Now, they seem to be yanking him off of that and heading him out to the campaign trail, just to save the Democrats in the House in November.” Henry used the “no-brainer” quote from the unnamed Democratic Party official in his answer and immediately proceeded to use his superlatives about Clinton: HENRY: Well, they’re careful here inside the White House to say that they don’t want to yank him off the Haiti job or any of his other important Clinton Foundation work, for example, altogether. They just want him to fit it in, because they say- look, as you noted, it’s a no-brainer . This is one of the best politicians the Democrats have ever had- you know, in the last quarter century . And, as President Obama faces these credibility questions and all these various national polls right now, and as he tries to make this case that there is a real choice between the Democratic message and the Republican message, people inside the White House say there’s no one better at making that case, that contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans, than Bill Clinton . So they want to use him early and often, and they point to what happened in 2000 when Al Gore had trepidation about using Bill Clinton- sort of backfired on him, blew up in his face. If they had used President Clinton more in 2000, he may have been president, Drew . Is Henry forgetting and/or brushing aside Clinton’s own credibility issues, such as his law license in Arkansas being suspended for five years after he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Griffin followed through by asking about the current Democratic occupant of the White House: “You know, I can’t resist, Ed, but what about using President Obama, the current president? He just doesn’t have the clout?” The CNN correspondent acknowledged Obama’s failing poll numbers, but then touted him as still being more or less equal to former President Clinton: HENRY: … Clearly, he’s facing these credibility questions because of all these national polls you’ve been talking about . The ABC one yesterday saying 6 in 10 Americans basically don’t have faith in this president right now to make the right decisions. They’re pushing back on that, obviously, inside the White House , and saying- look, they’re going to send him out on the campaign trail. But there’s certain states like Arkansas where President Obama is just deeply unpopular- lost to John McCain there by double digits. And so, they see it as a one-two punch . President Obama will be out there in some states, Bill Clinton will go to other ones, Drew.

View post:
CNN’s Ed Henry Touts Bill Clinton as ‘Best Democratic Politician’

Newsweek’s Graham: New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Story Is ‘The New ACORN’

During the previous presidential administration, the liberal media were more than happy to promote the Left’s allegations of improper political interference by Bush officials in the workings of the federal government. The Bushies improperly revised government scientists’ conclusions, bullied CIA analysts over their interpretation of Iraq intelligence, and perhaps worst of all, politicized the Justice Department, the media insisted. Yet when it comes to a serious charge of political interference by Obama appointees at the DOJ involving voter intimidation,  Newsweek’s David Graham dismisses the charge as simply another effort by conservatives at “staging an effective piece of political theater that hurts the Obama administration.”  As Newsweek editors quipped in their headline for Graham’s story, “The New Black Panther Party Is the New ACORN.” As we’ve noted here at NewsBusters, the liberal media virtually ignored the story about how a DOJ career attorney’s case against a New Black Panther member was dropped in May 2009 under the okay of an Obama DOJ appointee. Now with attention being cast by conservatives on the media’s bias by omission, folks like Graham are coming to the defense of the media by painting the matter as a non-scandal, evidenced in part by the conservative media outlets that have been the ones at the forefront of reporting the story: Several months after the 2008 Election Day incident (and 13 days before President Obama was sworn in) the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against the NBPP under the Voting Rights Act, alleging voter intimidation. In May 2009, Justice—now led by Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama’s appointee—successfully obtained an injunction against King Samir Shabazz, the man who carried the nightstick, then dropped the suit, Fox News reported . A spokeswoman at Justice says a career attorney made the call, which was then affirmed by an appointee, because “the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims against the other defendants in the case. A federal judge determined that the relief requested by the Department was appropriate.” That’s where things get messy. Starting last summer, some conservative media outlets—notably The Washington Times —began digging into the case, suggesting that because a top Obama appointee had signed off on the decision to drop charges, a move allegedly political favoritism (and, by implication, racism, given that both Holder and Obama are black). Graham went on to call into question the veracity of a key witness who alleged the Obama DOJ’s civil rights division had no interest in prosecuting blacks, only whites, on charges related to vote surpression or voter intimidation: Although that story didn’t go mainstream, it did cause the Commission on Civil Rights, an independent body, to take up the case . As Dave Weigel reported, there was more to that decision than met the eye: after eight years of George W. Bush appointments, the commission tilted definitively right. In addition, the star witness in the case against the NBPP, Bartle Bull, wasn’t exactly impartial. The white former Robert F. Kennedy aide, who called the incident “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encountered in my political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s,” had been an outspoken critic of Obama for some time. The commission has met several times to examine the case, but things really blew open on July 6, when Bush Justice official J. Christian Adams, who is white, suggested that Justice’s voting division avoided bringing cases where defendants were black and plaintiffs were white. Adams’s testimony is questionable ; there are doubts about whether he was actually present for the incidents he described, and he’s refused to offer details on key questions. Critics see other credibility problems for Adams: he was, for instance, hired when Bush’s Justice Department was systematically weakening the civil-rights division by forcing out career lawyers and replacing them with attorneys who had strong conservative credentials but little in the way of civil-rights experience. Did you catch that? To substantiate his charge that Adams is an unreliable witness, Graham takes as gospel truth the notion that the Bush DOJ had systematically politicized the Justice Department. The Obama/Holder DOJ can’t possibly be a place where political considerations trump career attorneys because the prior administration was blatantly political, Graham seems to argue. What’s more, Graham goes on to contend that: With some help from Fox News’s Kelly, the New Black Panthers story is now gaining steam. While there’s little doubt that the NBPP is a fringe group, critics of the decision to drop the suit have a tough case to make. The problem is that although it may look like voter intimidation, there aren’t actually any voters who filed an official complaint claiming to have been intimidated. As Adam Serwer writes , a polling station in a predominantly black neighborhood isn’t the best place to go if you’re trying to scare white voters off: “I imagine that the New Black Panthers thought they were protecting black voters from some phantom white-supremacist conspiracy (their public statements say as much).” And Weigel, who’s followed the case, has suggested there’s not much to it either— plus , “there’s no evidence the NBPP’s clownish Philadelphia stunt suppressed any votes, or that they’ll try such a stunt again.”  Just because the New Black Panthers are clowns who many voters may have laughed off doesn’t mean that their actions were, objectively speaking, worthy of prosecution as voter intimidation, but that’s what the liberal media are hanging their hats on to defend Team Obama and tell the American public that this scandal is all much ado about nothing.

See the original post here:
Newsweek’s Graham: New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Story Is ‘The New ACORN’

Desperate Times Call

The only “race card” that matters, will be played in November. And it’s called a ballot.

Read the original here:
Desperate Times Call