Schwing!

...If these numbers are sustained through Election Day -- a big if -- Republicans could be expected to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:33 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Sure looks that way.

The newest ad showcasing their hard line includes unflattering footage of McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubix Cube.

"1982, John McCain goes to Washington," an announcer says over chirpy elevator music. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't.

"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," it says. It shows video of McCain getting out of a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush and closes with a photo of him standing with the current President Bush at the White House. "After one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same."

Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said the campaign was not making an issue of the 72-year-old McCain's age, but the time he's spent in Washington.

"Since taking office, Obama has voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel projects, including $1 million for his wife's employer and $100,000 to this guy."

(quick shot of Father Pfleger saying something dumb)

In the same amount of time, John McCain never requested pork. He never has.

"Can we trust Obama to bring change? After all, it only took him 143 days to embrace Washington's free-spending ways. John McCain has resisted for 25 years."

"Consistent. Principled. Country First."

Obviously the language would need some tightening. It would be great to get someone like Fred Thompson to narrate it.

Another potential response below: more...

Posted by: Slublog at 05:29 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 783 words, total size 5 kb.

Here.

Oh, that is rich. That is precious.

Hey, stop me if you heard this one before--

It's funny. It's funny because it's true.

What, you don't get it? Well nothing's funny if you analyze it to death.

I have a screencap, too, for when they inevitably yank it.

Don't question their patriotism, though.

And don't question the patriotism of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann and other assorted Koz Kidz, either.

Thanks to DP.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 PM | Comments (85)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

That's our own Dave in Texas who done that there work.

MarkJ sent the idea -- and the tools.

'm no whiz at video editing, and i get the impression you aren't either, but there seems to be a web service that makes it easy to lay subtitles over existing Youtube videos

: www.overstream.net

The website seems pretty moron-friendly. The final video would play though their site, but if you read the FAQ, it is possible to create a self-standing youtube video that could be hosted on your site or uploaded to youtube for maximum viral spread. (perhaps some AoS minions could handle the technical details for you..)

And here's the video to run the titles on.

Thanks, guys!

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Unbelievable.

Is the Washington Post claiming that

1) "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not Al Qaeda in Iraq?

or

2) that it's "discredited" to link Al Qaeda in Iraq to Al Qaeda?

Thanks to someone.

Nice, But... The WaPo corrects stealth edits the article, still trying to cling to a bit of dignity by insisting that something here was wrong.

Of course they don't admit they've erred.

But at least they have changed the graf. That's something.

Three Questions:

1) Why does the WaPo employ such a dishonest partisan hack as a straight news reporter?

2) What is it about the WaPo's culture that makes this dishonest partisan hack believe that her lapses into gross distortion will be tolerated by her superiors?

3) Why did one of the WaPo's "multiple layers of painstaking fact-checking editorial oversight" not catch this gross distortion before it saw print? Sure, if they had one layer of painstaking fact-checking editorial oversight, I could see one of these slipping by on occasion. But, as they've told us dozens of times, they have "multiple layers of painstaking fact-checking editorial oversight." Multiple layers = Multiple accuracy!

How did this stinky fish slip through so many tightly-meshed nets?

Actually, I have a fourth question:

4) Is this reporterette going to be warned sternly about inserting her dickheaded Obama-sucking partisanship into page one stories? Or will she be allowed to skate free, told with a wink she can try once again, just maybe not be so obvious about it next time?

And AP Too, Of Course! AP is quite certain there are no Al Qaeda in Al Qaeda in Iraq.

In her speech to the troops and their families, she linked the terrorist attacks to the Iraq war — a claim no longer supported by the Bush administration.

She told the troops headed to Iraq that they would “be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced from the death of thousands of Americans.”

Claims that Iraq shared responsibility for the attacks with al-Qaida were once promoted by administration officials, but have since been rejected, even by President Bush.

As Dennis Miller joked -- maybe they're just "Al Kinda in Iraq."

Editor says...

WaPo just forced my hand... more cash to the RNC. I even gave to the Gov. race here in WA because we're gonna take it this time.

Every time a media outlet pulls a stunt like thi.... uh, nevermind - I'm not Donald Trump.

Good idea. I'll see about arranging a blog-wide donation notice to the RNC everytime the dickheaded partisans in the MSM do this.

So everytime you paid-by-the-word defamers get caught dirty, you'll know you were personally responsible for putting money in the RNC's pocket!

Everybody wins!

Here's the website to donate. Tell them the MSM referred you.

Just wrote the RNC about setting up a special segregated fund for just this purpose. Hopefully we'll have a widget that tallies how much has gone into this fund. Monies would be for general use, but segregated, just so we know how much the MSM is feeding the RNC.

We'll let the MSM know how much this is costing them. And by "them," I mean they and their bosom chums at the DNC.

NYTimes, Too! Scroll down. JYM is currently missing the genesis of the WaPo story, but I'll tip him.

Gee, it's funny... AP, NYT, and WaPo, all simultaneously and independently making the exact same false claims.

Why, you'd almost think these lazy incompetents merely look at the first story across the wires and take their reporting cues from that.

Or: Gee, maybe they all have exactly the same liberal politics and exactly the same liberal attitude with the truth.

Of Course... Those multiple layers of painstaking fact-checking oversight are not going to prevent the error from appearing on A1 of the print edition. They're not going to stop presses to stop an error that can only hurt Sarah Palin, after all. Correct tomorrow, on Saturday-- the least read day of the week.

Eh, what's it matter. You're in a dying medium. Within two years, two thirds of you will be out off jobs and finally forced to work for a living. Think the DNC will also help you when you're pushin' broom as a janitor in your kids' schools?

Enjoy your last hurrah, incompetents. Make it count.

Drudge Link: to the Weekly Standard drubbing. Center column, a ways down.

And what of the AP and NYT?

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 PM | Comments (112)
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess its two because one would be overworked and drop from exhaustion in a matter of days.

...they have assigned a couple of veteran minders to travel with him - David Wilhelm, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, former spokesman for Senator John Kerry...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:12 PM | Comments (35)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Edited out of the West Coast feed -- and yet they refused to actually issue a correction. Correction, See Below: Edited out of all 6:30 feeds.

I guess that's the media's offer of a "compromise correction" -- "We won't admit we were wrong, but how about if we hide the evidence we were wrong and even delete your statement that we were wrong? How's that work for ya? You end up looking like you agree with our mischaracterization, and we look like we didn't insist we were right even though we were wrong! You look worse, we look better! Everyone wins!"

Charlie Gibson didn't really demonstrate the preparation, experience, and fluidity with the issues that I expect of a network anchor.

Are we sure he's fit to step in and lead a nightly network newscast? He could stand a bit more coaching.

Allah says... Hang on, maybe the 'exact words" exchange also didn't air on the east coast, either. He's checking.

Either way, it's ABCNews editing out Palin's correct objection that those aren't her "exact words," and Gibson's cocksure insistence they are indeed her "exact words."

He confirms: Nope, edited out of the East Coast feed too.

So this means that ABCNews covered up its error on both coasts, and deleted Palin's statement that they'd erred for the whole country.

ABCNews new of this error since the first transcript was released at 4 ET. Not only did they get numerous objections, but I'm guessing it's very likely that Palin's people informed them of the error, too.

So they just deleted it via the "compromise correction" route.

Posted by: Ace at 07:52 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

A lot of people are piling on Palin for seeming not clear on what the Bush Doctrine was.

The thing is, it's not clear:

A common misconception is that the Bush Doctrine states that America has the right to preventively attack any country that it believes in the future will be a threat to America, as Charlie Gibson seems to believe. This is simply not true. Rather it is part of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine, which was laid out largely in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002 ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-020920.htm) has many less controversial aspects to it including that any nation harboring terrorists should be treated as a terrorist state, and that the United States should remain the sole superpower in the world. So, therefore, when Palin said that the Bush doctrine was Bush's world view, one can argue she was techincally correct, in that the Bush doctrine is a collection of Bush's policies. Gibson, however, is undoubtably wrong. Even the top of the wikipedia article has got it right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine.

If Charlie Gibson wants to turn an interview into a quiz, he should at least have a correct answer key.

"[The Doctrine] has many less controversial aspects to it including that any nation harboring terrorists should be treated as a terrorist state, and that the United States should remain the sole superpower in the world" -- actually these seem more controversial to me than the idea you'd attack someone preemptively you knew was preparing to attack you.

To be honest, I forgot what it was, exactly. I knew it wasn't about keeping the Spanish out of our hemisphere. When I saw the transcript, I immediately "remembered" (you know, how you remember once you're told the thing directly).

But when Allah mentioned to me she had seemed to have forgotten the Bush Doctrine, I kinda did what she did: I extemporized. "Really?" I said, trying to remember what exactly it was. Then I changed the subject.

Thanks to Frances.

The doctrine that the US will attack a foreign country preemptively if it is preparing to attack us, by the way, is not the or even a "Bush Doctrine." It's an American doctrine. Every president would do that, unless he's Jimmy Carter or Barack Uhhhbama, and it hardy needs to be stated formally as a "doctrine."

It's just common sense. It's self-defense.

It has been so stated formally, as part of the Bush Doctrine, but it was true before ever being so formulated.

Treacher parodizes tomorrow's interview.

More From Andy (Mannequin) McCarthy: Here, in which "The Bush Doctrine" didn't even include preemptive attacks when announced; and here, as experts disagree on exactly what is and what is not part of it.

Correction: Frances tells me what makes Bush's idea of preemption controversial is that he applies it to "growing" threats.

Preemptive attacks are uncontroversial, as they're defined, I'm told, as responses to immediate or near-immediate threats.

Preventative attacks are more controversial as they seek to head off not-yet-ripe threats.

Posted by: Ace at 06:57 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama and McCain meet to discuss public service.

This being 9/11, political attacks will be infrequent to nonexistent, and muted if they occur at all.

Which seems to play into McCain's strengths, as he can talk about his service as an aviator and a POW, and Barack Obama can talk about... community organizin'.

On the other hand, it sounds like a snoozer. I don't think there is going to be a lot of partisan sniping on the proposition "it is good to serve our country" and "we should honor those who have died to protect this nation."

Posted by: Ace at 04:02 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Post 'em here, if you're watching.

No Question How ABC is Playing This... PALIN DECLARES WAR ON RUSSIA!!!111!!!one!

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (271)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.