|
May 02, 2008
WorldNetLefty says "source" said McCain said "c" word
I'm familiar with the so-called "allegations" about McCain calling his wife the "c" word in 1992, and although I hadn't checked with WorldNetDaily to see if they're repeated there, I'm not sure they're even up to that level of "journalism." But today I saw (on a FireDogLake YouTube video linked by Gateway Pundit) that a professional operative posing as a minister managed to work the "c" word into a question for McCain at a town hall meeting. (Link via Glenn Reynolds.) It would be one thing if this were a legitimate issue. But this is pure nonsense, and I found myself wondering what the reaction would have been had a right wing operative asked Barack Obama about the ridiculous sex-and-drugs-with-the-gay-prostitute "story." The McCain campaign has already done what I don't think they needed to do, and denied the allegations: Campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker told U.S. News that both stories are "untrue and driven by partisan interests and blind sources."I'm sorry, but this is not a story. I'm sick and tired of so-called "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources, because they are not sources at all. They do not rise to the level of an accusation that merits being denied. Once again, let me point out what shouldn't need pointing out at all: anyone can make anything up about anyone. I've complained repeatedly about WorldNetDaily reporting paranoid conspiracy claims as news, but Cliff Schecter's standards do not even rise to the level of WorldNetDaily. At least when WND reported the ridiculous story of a man who claimed to have shared sex and cocaine with Barack Obama, they gave the name of the "witness." And it was up to people to decide whether to believe him. (He eventually failed a lie detector test and was discredited.) But here there isn't even an accuser whose credibility can be evaluated and tested; just an ardent left wing writer who claims there is, and who plugs his book as "proof" each time. Schecter, the accuser (a guy who snarks that Republicans can't read) sloppily recites conspiracy theories based on things on the radio he is unable to recall: If I remember correctly, the host went on to say that -- especially based on recent reports of news outlet complicity in the military analyst scandal -- they are feeling a potential threat should Obama get elected. If he goes after BushCo, the media would be implicated, too.The media want to "eliminate" Obama because he might "go after" Bush if elected (criminal prosecutions for war crimes) and this might spill over to a media scandal? Hmmm..... In a post titled "Group that wants Bush to be "President-for-Life" linked to Bush Administration itself," Schecter promoted the paranoid conspiracy claim that a right wing clique linked to Dick Cheney (who else?) wanted Bush to kill all Arabs in Iraq, populate it with Americans, so that the military would love Bush, who would then become president -- forever and ever! Here's a partial quote in italics (with Schecter's reactions in plain text): That valuable historic example? Julius Caesar.Putting the rather strange Caesar analogies aside, the author of the above (soon pulled from the FSM site) was not only an embarrassment to FSM, but he's clearly a crackpot. The point it, it isn't hard to find nuts (whether of the left wing or the right wing variety) writing nutty things in places that shouldn't have let them, but does Schecter seriously believe there ever was any such a plot by Dick Cheney, Laura Ingraham, and Frank Gaffney? He either does (in which case he's an unreliable paranoid conspiracy theorist) or he does not (in which case he's dishonest). Either way, I don't trust him. Once again, this guy strikes me as a loopy WorldNetDaily-of-the-left type. Such people are certainly free to speculate about whatever nonsense they want, but to take someone like that at his word that McCain talked dirty to his wife because "sources" he won't name said so is very foolish. People are gullible, though, and they have a way of falling for what they want to believe. That's what made P.T. Barnum and Ann Coulter rich. posted by Eric on 05.02.08 at 07:56 PM |
|
May 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2008
April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Obama Identifies The Problem
WorldNetLefty says "source" said McCain said "c" word Banal treason make me sick! (Homesick!) Gay Republicans hate themselves. (But socialism offers a cure!) Had enough of the sewer culture? Tom Ligon's Latest Fusion Article Hillary Needs Some Military Schooling How To Beat Anti-Evolutionists In 15 Seconds Romance from The Gadfly - Shostakovich Tell me this isn't satire. Please!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"But the liberal blogosphere--if not mainstream media publications--has been abuzz with the allegations, particularly after they were picked up yesterday by the popular Huffington Post, to which Schecter is an occasional contributor."
Looks the HuffPo may have more than just a casual relationship with the story. Gateway Pundit has screen shots of the registration sheets, which show Marty Parrish and (putative?) videographer Keith Dismons listing their affiliation as the Huffington Post.