Nashville Post Politics: Lil’ O’Reilly Is Back

Nashville Post Politics

Lil’ O’Reilly Is Back

(Editor’s note: Because even dog whistle politics can be funny!)

Advertisements

Washington Independent: Fox News Racism Says Powell Will Endorse Obama

Washington Independent

Fox News Racism Says Powell Will Endorse Obama

OK, never mind what I said about Lawrence O’Donnell.

Fox News has an item about a possible Colin Powell endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama that relies on absolutely nothing but race to justify the speculation.

Under the headline “Hip-Hop Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He’ll Endorse Obama”— yes, you read that correctly! — Fox “reports” the following:

The normally staid former U.S. secretary of state and chairman of the Joint chiefs of staff performed an impromptu hip-hop dance alongside well-known rap stars Tuesday following a speech at a festival in London celebrating African-American music and fashion.

His address at the “Africa Rising” celebration inside London’s Royal Albert Hall fueled speculation that an endorsement of Barack Obama is imminent.

Fox provides absolutely no evidence that Powell “fueled” anything.

It quotes from a Powell speech at Royal Albert Hall that simply expresses pride in his African-American heritage. And for good measure, the “report” contains this line, which would never in a million years be written about a white politician:

“Colin Powell has his dancing shoes on, fueling speculation that he’s gearing up to do the Obama Two-Step.”

Yeah, it had to be a two-step.

Basically, Fox News viewed a black man expressing pride in being black and figured he’d endorse the black presidential candidate.

I don’t really know what you’re supposed to say about this crap except that it’s racist. First the“terrorist fist-jab” on-camera incident and now this.

Media Matters: Cunningham: “I think there will be 100 cities burning if Barack loses. Yeah, that’s what the black intelligentsia says”

Media Matters

Cunningham: “I think there will be 100 cities burning if Barack loses. Yeah, that’s what the black intelligentsia says”

 Radio host Bill Cunningham stated: “I think there will be 100 cities burning if Barack loses. Yeah, that’s what the black intelligentsia says.” Cunningham also asserted that “Flavor Flav, 50 Cent, and Diddy” are “really in charge of the [Obama] Inaugural [Ball].”

Media Matters: Savage: “[N]ot all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim”

Media Matters

Savage: “[N]ot all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim”

On his radio show, Michael Savage said that “not all Muslims are terrorists,” then falsely asserted that “all terrorists happen to be Muslim.” Savage stated: “I am a believer in all five of the world’s religions. As long as they’re peace-loving and are pro-American, as far as I’m concerned, all religions are equal.” He continued, “However, when you consider the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists happen to be Muslim and that the 19 hijackers who destroyed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Muslim, mainly from Saudi Arabia, we have a very real obligation to remember that.”

Weekly Standard Blog: No One Ever Said ‘Kill Him’ About Obama

Weekly Standard Blog

No One Ever Said ‘Kill Him’ About Obama

A look back at the original language used by Palin at the rally in question makes it nearly impossible for the exclamation to be misunderstood as an attack on Obama unless you happen to be a MSM member just dying to think the worst of the Right.

Here’s the original account from the Washington Post of the Florida rally by Dana Milbank:

“And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'” she continued. 

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

 

The subject of Palin’s sentence is never in doubt. It’s William Ayers, not Barack Obama. Predictably, the story of the man who allegedly yelled “kill him” about Barack Obama has found its way into an AP story, and then found its way into a thousand iterations of the story of the McCain-Palin rage McCain and Palin are allegedly inciting.

If someone had wanted to yell “kill him” about Obama, he would likely have yelled it in response to Palin’s preceding sentence:

“Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers,” Palin said. 

“Boooo!” said the crowd.

 

At least then, there would have been a chance it could have been directed at Obama, as both Obama and Ayers are present in Palin’s sentence.

But the liberal media, which has at times ignored and at times applauded as high art the assassination fetishism of the last eight years on the Left, is now projecting it onto all McCain-Palin supporters, using several outbursts and one decidedly misinterpreted “kill him” as their hook.

Best case, they’re betraying a deep misunderstanding of conservatives. In the worst cases, a deep desire to think and broadcast the worst about them, even when it’s unrepresentative or untrue. I was in the McCain-Palin mob yesterday at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., and it was filled with small businessmen fearing an Obama tax increase, Army and Marine wives yelling twice as loud to stand in for their husbands fighting overseas, smiling 20-something women with “Read my lipstick” buttons.

The only nastiness I heard during the day was an outburst, apparently provoked by Obama supporters who wandered into the crowd outside just as I had to leave. I was too far away to hear the exact exchange, so I couldn’t write it up—although clearly such limitations don’t limit the MSMers who repeat the “kill him” myth— but others were closer and able to report on the friendly, tolerant rhetoric of the Left,whose members were calling McCain a “murderer.”

The conservative response, as reported by a local newspaper, was tame, reminding the protesters that McCain had fought for their right to dissent and throwing off a more colorful, “Free speech for freaks.”

Elsewhere, I saw three older men speaking with a gesticulating protester who was ranting about the evils of the two-party system and capitalism and every other lefty canard you could imagine. They patiently listened, tried to teach her a little bit about how the real world works in between her soliloquies, and she remained the only one yelling throughout the entire exchange.

The media will never report about the fringe members and hateful activities of lefty rallies. Upside-down flags at pro-immigration rallies are studiously ignored. Rampant violence, black supremacy messages, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism are watercolored in MSM features as the young, sexy, drive of the counter-culture, reignited in a younger generation and pushed to its breaking point by a Republican president and the injustice of war. “Sarah Palin is a ****” t-shirts never become part of a meme about the “angry,” “mob-like” tendencies of Obama supporters.

I get that. But is it too much to ask that, if the media is going to unfairly magnify and broadcast isolated incidents, that the incidents actually have happened?

NY Post: The O Jesse Knows

NY Post

The O Jesse Knows

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout whenBarack Obama enters the White House.

Is Jackson worried about the “Bradley effect” – that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won’t end up voting for him?

“I don’t think this is how things will turn out,” he says. “We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins.”

BAGNewsNotes: Is Obama’s Race Trumping Whatever Else The TIME Cover Is Supposed To Be Trumping?

BAGNewsNotes

Is Obama’s Race Trumping Whatever Else The TIME Cover Is Supposed To Be Trumping?

 

Maybe I’m just skittish because Palin-McCain are playing the terrorist card, but I’ve got all kinds of problems with this.

What I’m specifically wondering is: exactly how does this photo-illustration either convey the economy is trumping race OR worried white voters are turning toward Obama?

If anything, it looks like the cover plays into McCain’s game by showing Obama as two-sided or split and, therefore, not who he seems “on his face.”  (Insult to injury, by the way, it’s not like they haven’t done it before.)

And then, the left half of the cover creeps me out for three reasons.  First, the black-and-white side echoes the feeling of all the old newspaper and FBI mug shot images of Bill Ayers that the media has been all-too-happy to run lately.  Second, the black background with the reversed TIME letters, along with the facial shadows and accentuated facial creases, has a stark, severe and sort of militant feeling to it.  Third, the left half of Obama’s face (if you block the other side with your hand) is much more ominous than the “normal” side.  The eye is longer, narrower, more suspicious; the mouth conveys nothing of the smile; and the contrasted mustache stubble does, in my mind, offer a much more “Obama = Arab” feeling.

Then, look at the text.  The black-and-white Obama is the anchor for “Worried White Voters” and “Obama’s Foreignness” (lest these words even be printed on the cover in the first place) and, what the country might look forward to from blacks if their man loses.  That’s in contrast to voters being “more open” over on the other side.

Am I somehow reading in or particularly missing something here?