microsoft works converter open office. microsoft office vs works 6.0 microsoft works Software Directory :: Download Microsoft Works 9 OEM microsoft works free demo discount microsoft works .microsoft works 2003 cheap

Fox Has Again Used Old Video, Distorting The News

Fox has been embarrassed again for using old video to exaggerate turn out at a recent event. Sean Hannity was recently caught doing thisThe Swamp reports on the latest case:

FOX has done it again, and this time, once again, FOX says its misplay of the wrong crowd video was another regrettable mistake.

Today, FOX News host Gregg Jarrett was talking about Republican Sarah Palin’s book tour and the crowd she is drawing at the start of it – no small turnout, with some 1,500 people lining up early this morning for a chance to get into this evening’s premier book-signing for Going Rogue in Grand Rapids.

“Sarah Palin continuing to draw huge crowds while she’s promoting her brand new book,” FOX’s Jarrett told his viewers. “Take a look at — these are some of the pictures just coming into us… The lines earlier had formed this morning.”

But it turns out that Happening Now had pulled some video of something that happened last year: Displaying video today from Palin’s campaign for the vice presidency, on the ticket with the GOP’s Sen. John McCain – which also drew considerable crowds, as shown today in video of a smiling Palin before an adoring campaign crowd.

“This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn’t alert the control room to update the video,” Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news at FOX, sad this evening. “There will be an on-air explanation during Happening Now on Thursday.”

Palin Cover Encourages Conservative Whining

Newsweek Palin

The picture of Sarah Palin on the cover of Newsweek has elicited some selective outrage from the right. In a post entitled Newsweek Photo of Palin Shows Media Bias and Sexism, David Brody begins “For all of you who live in a dream world and think the mainstream media isn’t biased, get a load of the latest cover of Newsweek…”

This is far more a case of conservatives loving to play the victim than anything meaningful. Max Blumenthal has written far more on how Palin plays on such victimization:

By emphasizing her own crises and her victimization by the “liberal media,” Palin has established an invisible, indissoluble bond with adherents of that subculture — so visceral it transcends any rational political analysis. As a result, her career has become a vehicle through which the right-wing evangelical movement feels it can express its deepest identity in opposition both to secular society and to its representatives in the Obama White House. Palin is perceived by its leaders — and followers — not as another cynical politician or even as a self-promoting celebrity, but as a kind of magical helper, the God-fearing glamour girl who parachuted into their backwater towns to lift them from the drudgery of everyday life, assuring them that they represented the “Real America.”

The cover is somewhat sexist but if  Sarah Palin did not want to be shown in pictures of this nature she should not have posed for this photo. Sure Newsweek could have used a number of other pictures available of her but Palin’s own behavior encourages covers such as this. Her winks and use of sex appeal are part of her act. Besides, as Steve M. points out, such sexist cover shots are hardly limited to conservatives.

2009-04-21-WashingtonianObamashirtless

A sexist photo or article hardly proves media bias in any one ideological direction. You can also ask Hillary Clinton about this.

The claim by David Brody that this cover proves any sort of liberal bias on the part of Newsweek or the mainstream media is also contradicted by this report of what appears to be anti-Obama conservative bias at Newsweek. It is possible to show some examples of bias in all directions, but there is hardly any case to support the conservative myth of the mainstream media having an overall liberal bias. The myth of a liberal media is just another example of conservatives claiming to be victims.

Update: Sarah Palin is also attacking the picture on Facebook.

Sarah Palin and the Dinosaurs

Marc Ambinder shows how Sarah Palin is on the dumb end of the creationist spectrum. Of course we already knew this last September.

Television Suggestion

I hope Saturday Night Live gets Tina Fey to come on tonight and play Sarah Palin doing a book interview (perhaps with Katie Couric).

Even Fox Debunks Sarah Palin’s Imaginary War on Coins

A couple of days ago I noted a couple of the areas where Sarah Palin had her facts wrong in a recent speech. This included both her continued mischaracterization of the health care reform legislation and her claims about changes in coins. She was talking about a “disturbing trend” seen with the movement of “In God We Trust” to the edge of coins. She saw this as a new move by secular liberals in the Obama administration, but this change was actually commissioned in 2005 under a Republican Congress and approved by George Bush.

As with so much of what Sarah Palin says, there’s no basis in reality. Even Fox, which generally repeats Republican talking points as fact, wouldn’t go along with a comment as off the wall as her statement on the coins (video above). If only Fox would fact check the conservative statements they repeat more often.

Sarah Palin Channels Glenn Beck on Heath Care and Secularized Coins

Sarah Palin has found new fantasies to talk about and excite the right wing. Politco covered a Palin rally where she discussed both health care along with expressing some paranoid thoughts regarding coins. She didn’t specifically mention death panels but raised the same type of fears:

Speaking to a fund-raising banquet of Wisconsin Right to Life, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee asserted that if policy-makers don’t believe a child in the womb is valuable, then “perhaps the same mind-set applies to other persons.”

“What may they feel about an elderly person who doesn’t have a whole lot of productive years left,” Palin asked an audience of about 5,000 who paid $30 each to hear her speak in an airplane hangar-like exhibition hall at the Wisconsin state fairgrounds just outside of Milwaukee. “In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed… [so] than this elderly person that perhaps could be seen as costing taxpayers to pay for a non-productive life? Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?

“And what about the child who perhaps isn’t deemed normal or perfect per someone’s subjective measure of their use or questionable purpose in the eyes of a panel of bureaucrats making our health care decisions for us,” she continued.

We may or may not wind up with some sort of rationing in the future, but there is nothing in the health care reform legislation which brings us any closer. The bill does not give the government any power to make medical decisions or intrude on the doctor-patient relationship, despite the repeated Republican claims that this is a “government take over of health care.” On Thursday the American Medical Association addressed this in a fax to physicians explaining their support of the legislation:

Preserving the power of patients and their physicians to make health care decisions–rather than insurance companies or government officials–is of paramount importance to all physicians and to the AMA. While H.R. 3962 includes a number of new government oversight bodies, the AMA has not identified any new authority that would overpower the relationship between patients and their physicians. Furthermore, expanded coverage and choice should help empower patient and physician decision making.

Palin also had a new argument based upon fallacious information:

In addition to the suggestion that government officials would consider hastening the death of the infirm or handicapped, she began her remarks with a puzzling commentary on the design of newly minted dollar coins.

Noting that there had been a lot of “change” of late, Palin recalled a recent conversation with a friend about how the phrase “In God We Trust” had been moved to the edge of the new coins.

“Who calls a shot like that?” she demanded. “Who makes a decision like that?”

She added: “It’s a disturbing trend.”

Unsaid but implied was that the new Democratic White House was behind such a move to secularize the nation’s currency.

But the new coins – concerns over which apparently stemmed from an email chain letter widely circulated among conservatives – were commissioned by the Republican-led Congress in 2005 and approved by President Bush.

Where have we heard this type of logic before? Andrew Sullivan identifies it as the logic of Glenn Beck:

The whole technique of mentioning strange events or codes or numbers and implying that there is some sinister force behind them is classic Beck. And since the anti-Christ is now in the White House, we are all left to wonder what is next. Of course: it’s euthanasia of the elderly and state-mandated abortion of disabled or special need kids. Next up: the ritual killing of white new-borns or some such.

I can’t wait for the “book”.

Jon Stewart recently provided an excellent parody of Beck using this type of logic.

Update: Even Fox has debunked Sarah Palin’s imaginary “war on coins.”

Book Provides More Stories About Palin

Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe followed Sarah Palin during the 2008 election campaign and have published their account in an upcoming book, Sarah from Alaska. CNN has described some of the items in the book, such as this report about Palin on election night:

According to a copy of the book obtained by CNN, Palin’s speechwriter Matthew Scully had prepared a brief speech for the then-Alaska governor to deliver while introducing McCain, before he gave his concession speech at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix. But after conferring in his suite with senior advisers Mark Salter, Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt, McCain nixed the idea of having Palin speak before him.

Schmidt then broke the news to Palin. But she told no one on her staff, the authors write, setting off a series of staff miscommunications that went unresolved until moments before McCain took the stage to concede the election.

Palin did not inform her adviser Jason Recher, who was planning out Palin’s movements that night, about Schmidt’s directive.

“I’m speaking,” Palin told him, according to the book. “I’ve got the remarks. Figure it out.”

Palin’s deputy chief of staff Chris Edwards, meanwhile, was also unaware that Palin had been told she was not to speak. Edwards, ready to load the speech into teleprompter, bumped into Schmidt, who told him McCain would be speaking alone. Edwards relayed Schmidt’s order to Palin, but she once again did not let on that Schmidt had already spoken to her.

The governor could not understand why she was not being allowed to speak. “This speech is great,” she said, according to the authors. “It’s all about how John McCain’s an American hero.”

The confusion continued until the final minutes before the concession speech, when Palin – still shuffling through her speech notes – gathered with McCain, family members and senior staff outside McCain’s villa at the resort.

Sensing uncertainty, Salter finally put his foot down. “You’re not speaking,” the longtime McCain adviser told Palin. “John has decided it’s unprecedented.”

Other incidents mentioned include how the McCain team used flash cards to bring Palin “up to speed on foreign affairs and major national issues.” This included a card to teach her that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is Gordon Brown. During the campaign she wanted to bring up Jeremiah Wright, believing it would help prevent the defeat which had become inevitable the day McCain chose Palin. Apparently Palin wanted very badly to win, on one occasion being quoted as saying, “I just don’t want to go back to Alaska.” Perhaps that foreshadowed her eventual resignation as governor.

November 3, 2009
Posted: November 3rd, 2009 08:03 AM ET
From

Palin was concerned about the cost of the wardrobe that was purchased for her during the campaign, according to the new book.

Palin was concerned about the cost of the wardrobe that was purchased for her during the campaign, according to the new book.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Tensions within John McCain’s presidential campaign boiled over on Election Night last November when Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, repeatedly ignored directions from senior staffers who told her she would not be delivering her own concession speech.

Those fresh details on the conflict between Palin and members of the McCain team come in a new book – “Sarah from Alaska” – by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe, two members of the press corps that traveled with Palin during the 2008 presidential race. The pair spent much of the following year reporting on the campaign turmoil and the vice presidential nominee’s difficult return to Alaska after the election.

According to a copy of the book obtained by CNN, Palin’s speechwriter Matthew Scully had prepared a brief speech for the then-Alaska governor to deliver while introducing McCain, before he gave his concession speech at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix. But after conferring in his suite with senior advisers Mark Salter, Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt, McCain nixed the idea of having Palin speak before him.

Schmidt then broke the news to Palin. But she told no one on her staff, the authors write, setting off a series of staff miscommunications that went unresolved until moments before McCain took the stage to concede the election.

Palin did not inform her adviser Jason Recher, who was planning out Palin’s movements that night, about Schmidt’s directive.

“I’m speaking,” Palin told him, according to the book. “I’ve got the remarks. Figure it out.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Approval Ratings of Obama And Top Republican Contenders

If you listen to the right wing media and blogs you would think that Obama’s popularity is tanking and the Republicans are on a rebound. The polls show a different story:

Obama is basically back where he was before a huge bounce around the election, and trending upwards. In contrast, the three Republicans mentioned the most for the 2012 nomination are all trending downwards. (This is not to mean that the nominee will be one of these three but I doubt that any other Republicans prospects have enough national name recognition to even have meaningful poll results.

Republicans also lag well behind both Democrats and Independents in party identification:

The voters tomorrow and a year from now are likely to be older and whiter than those who turned out to vote a year ago. The Republicans might have a couple of decent elections ahead with more motivated voters in the off year elections, but once we get to 2012 the Republican Party is in serious trouble.

Another Poll This Week Shows Republican Support At New Low

Many Republican sites are showing an overly-optimistic and selective reading of recent polls. There certainly are potential dangers for Obama and the Democrats after months of the right hitting them with false claims about policies such as health care reform. That does not mean that there is any support for the Republicans to return to power. First Read provides this reality check from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:

Put simply, the GOP’s brand is still a mess. According to the poll, just 25% have a positive opinion of the party (compared with 42% for the Dem Party), which ties the GOP’s low-water mark in the survey and which is a worse score than it ever had during the Bush presidency. (Honest question: Can the party still blame Bush for their problems if their numbers have gotten lower since he left the scene?) In addition, only 23% approve of the way in which congressional Republicans have handled health care (compared with 43% for Obama). And looking ahead to the 2010 midterms, 46% prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, versus 38% who want a GOP-controlled Congress. Last month, Dems held a 43%-40% advantage. Also, don’t miss this: Despite being out of office and (relatively) out of the news, Sarah Palin’s fav/unfav in our poll has dropped from 32%-43% in July to 27%-46% now. In fact, her numbers now are nearly identical to Nancy Pelosi’s (26%-42%). By the way, both Palin and Pelosi are more popular than the Republican Party.

While any dissastisfaction with Obama does not provide helpful news for the Republicans, it is notable that, “nearly half of respondents (46%) support building an independent political party to compete with the Democrats and Republicans.”

As I discussed earlier in the week, in noting that Public Policy Polling also shows the Republicans at new lows, if post historical trends continue the Republicans should pick up some seats in the off year elections next year. The Republicans are showing greater intensity,  even if their numbers are lower, and are likely to turn out in greater numbers, especially with Obama not on the ballot. Many Democrats are also faced with defending districts which historically have been in Republican hands. Between this and an overall anti-incumbent sentiment, I would expect some to be unable to hold on to newly won Democratic seats.

Gallup Finds (No Surprise) That Both Edwards and Palin Are Polling Poorly

Gallup is apparently desperate to drive traffic to their site to read about a rather trivial poll with the headline. The popularity of a politician right now, as opposed to when they are actually campaigning for office, is of some but not tremendous interest. Gallup reports that “John Edwards, Sarah Palin Both See Favorable Ratings Slide.”

It is somewhat of interest that Sarah Palin’s approval numbers are so low, but she has barely begun to do whatever she planned to do when she resigned as Governor. Such numbers will be far more significant once she is actually running for something. Besides, the poll shows that, despite a low approval, she remains competitive with Romney and Huckabee in the virtually meaningless polling on the 2012 nomination.

It is no surprise that Edwards’ popularity has dropped tremendously, and it is doubtful he will ever be elected to any office again.

Besides dropping in popularity, the two have little in common. Sure both are former vice presidential candidates and both are partially known for their hair, but otherwise their careers at this point have little in common. John Edwards’ popularity has dropped because he was caught cheating on his wife who is fighting cancer. Sarah Palin’s popularity has dropped because every time she opens her mouth, or posts about “death panels” on Facebook, she shows that she is unfit for national office. Most likely Edwards has given up on running for office while Palin is probably looking towards running in 2012. It makes little sense to include the two in the same poll. I’m just not sure which of the two should feel more insulted by being lumped with the other.