Monday, October 09, 2006

everybody agrees... ? there... ! it's anonymous... !!

And I'm not the only one who says so:
"Even if the idiot Democrats don’t screw it up by themselves, the Republicans will win anyway, because they own the voting machines."
On another front, mass media sleaze peddler Fox News, having its free-ride on the public airwaves, is up to no good again:
"FOX News has followed its recent blunder of misidentifying Republican Mark Foley as a Democrat by doing the same with Senate hopeful Sheldon Whitehouse, showing him as a Republican when he is in fact the Democratic candidate for US Senate from Rhode Island."
This is no mistake and is a concerted effort. The Associated Press IDed Foley as a Democrat over the weekend too. Meanwhile, Ohio's scumbag state secretary, Kenneth Blackwell, whom, if you can believe Bob Woodward anymore, George Bush considers a 'nut' (which is all a body need know how hoop-dee-doo he really must be), and who was in charge of counting the votes in 2004 as he is this year -- this while running for Governor -- has been sending out mail-in ballots IDing the Democrat as Republican. Talk about the ultimate smear campaign: tarring your opponent as one of your own.

Assuming for the sake of argument, because I don't believe for a second the Oligarchy will let the likes of Mark Foley interrupt their fascist takeover of what's left of America's democracy -- say the Democrats do take over Congress in 2006. Does it not make sense, then, the first order of business should be an anti-Anti-trust measure to decentralize what has become the American corporate media?

Paper balloting'd be nice too.

Meanwhile, go see The Brad Blog for today's outrage.


Naahm Deplume said...

You see a conspiracy where I see stupidity. Every day I see misprints, typos, incorrect citations, etc. in documents where people really ought to proofread and cite-check. Now, everyone relies on spellcheck to catch their brain-farts.

Nor is this new. I found glaring examples of things produced by democrats that were incorrect or conveyed a message they really don't want, dating back to the 80's.

In fact, the examples I have found appear to be depressingly bipartisan. Truthfully, I would rather they be intentional, then I would not think them incompetent.

Barking Up Trees said...

actually it's the great debate online -- "incompetence" or "morally bereft"... ? clearly one can be both... but i must insist the bushies are more of the latter... their whole raison d'etre is eliminate the social safety net instituted by the new deal: mission almost accomplished... all they want now is to eliminate social security...

to assume they went into iraq for wmd's is to buy into their slight-of-hand, offered to obscure their real reason: oil & war-profiteerig out the yin/yang... soldiers dying gives fresh meaning to "collateral damage" and since nobody's rich kid is dying except the pro-footballer, whose father wasn't a gazillionaire, it's no skin off their noses... fundamentally speaking, then, to call bush & rumsfeld's conduct of the occupation "incompetent" or "stupid" is to assume they gave a damn about anything beyond raking in the bucks...

and what was it matron bush said on t.v. about flag-draped coffins... ? oh yes: "why waste my beautiful mind on that?"

as for fox news, screwing up party affiliations on the chyron once may be nothing, but with foley... ?? and doing so twice within a few days, in different circumstances, particularly when being associated with the republicans today, requires effort...

and your "bipartisan . . . examples"... ? what are they again... ?

Naahm Deplume said...

For one, Dick Simpson, with a banner under his picture that read "Lack of Representation." I loved it.

As for more, I cannot go back and research the world's archives for you. In fact, it is my bad for bringing up an issue that I would have to support with evidence, after saying I would not get into this. Of course, bringing up issues with little or no evidence hasn't stopped that UWisc professor or you.