I personally would be shocked if MSNBC doesn’t pick this up sometime before the week is out.
5 days later we see Rachel Maddow using it without mentioning Robert Stacy by name on Meet the Press. Clever move too, by being ambiguous it allows the accusation to dangle there against Palin and her co-author and doesn’t require any of the people present to confirm her opinion on Robert Stacy she states it as a fact and instead of people having to say it’s BS they talk about “association” as if the charge was true.
Now because it was on Meet the Press it gives MSNBC an excuse to cover it and assures Charles of some screen time.
One of the things that fascinated me during the Iraq war was the amount of bad information and press that was coming from the MSM.
Basically the media relied on stringers (of dubious source and allegiance) to get general information that could be spun any way that the media desired.
Reading thesethreads concerning the Sparkman murder it was like those days of yesteryear when the media still thought the war could be lost.
While the SPLC sees little evidence of hate groups targeting the Census Bureau, there isn’t much sympathy for Sparkman on those groups’ Web sites.
Got that even though the Charles’s favorite “civil rights” group says there there is little evidence of the census being targeted Newsweek manages to paint the picture they want to paint.
God forbid they actually deal with someone who was actually there as the Sundries Shack points out:
What is the difference between those two journalists? One of them actually went to Kentucky for three days, spoke to people in Clay and Laurel Counties and filed no fewer than four stories while there.
Guess which one of the two wasn’t in Kentucky? If you said the highly-paid so-called journalist for Newsweek, you win a cookie!
And despite the late Mr. Johnson (when I say the late Mr. Johnson I’m referring to his credibility) says he was not trying to pick up girls he was instead, wait for it…Reporting:
Baseless speculation about this case — and particularly, the attempt by some to make a political symbol of Sparkman’s death — was what motivated me to travel this past week to Kentucky, where I spent three days in Clay County and neighboring Laurel County, where Sparkman lived.
The involvement of the FBI in the case has resulted in an almost complete official silence from state and local law enforcement. However, residents of the area (including local journalists I interviewed at length) are profoundly skeptical of any suggestion that Sparkman was killed because of general “anti-government sentiment” (as the Associated Press was first to suggest) or the more specific “anti-Census sentiment” that is the subject of this Newsweek story.
He elaborates further on his blog which is nice of him since unlike his spectator article it doesn’t guarantee a paycheck for what he says:
It’s a free country, which means everyone is free to speculate how and why Bill Sparkman died. But ill-informed speculation and assumptions are no substitute for facts, and there are still too many unknown facts for anyone to pretend to know the motives of whoever put Sparkman’s body in that cemetery.
If the editors of Newsweek don’t want to pay for solid, sensible, accurate reporting, they need to grab themselves a fresh, hot cup of delicious STFU.
Ah Robert Stacy you forget, Newsweek is not in the business of printing facts, they are in the business of selling magazines to a rapidly diminishing segment of the population that has a particular set of prejudices. If they are not given what they want or expect will the magazine sell? Will their people be interviewed on the talk show circuit? Will they be invited to all the right parties?
It is that same sycophancy that drives Newsweek in this case and Hollywood in the Polanski case. The desire to fit in with the chosen group or the determination that their gravy train is best served by being acceptable to said group.
As for Charles, well I remember the old days when the left figured he was paid, some bloggers have suggested it and it would explain much but I don’t buy it. Why see a conspiracy that there is no evidence for when there is ample evidence of an angry jealous snit?
And have you noticed he always waits till Robert Stacy is out of town or unavailable to launch his attacks?
What a Maroon!
Oh and I didn’t see the Rachel Maddow stuff but anyone who takes her anything resembling seriously is not someone who should be taken seriously either. As Cynthia Yockey says
If Maddow wants to work guilt-by-association on anyone, why didn’t she start with Moammar Gaddafi’s testimonial for Obama when he was running for president, complete with the assertion that he believes Obama is a Muslim? Or Louis Farrakhan’s testimonial for Obama? The last I looked they were on YouTube, fer cryin’ out loud. And isn’t Gaddafi a Muslim supremacist — commanded by Allah to kill all unbelievers? And isn’t Farrakhan a Muslim black supremacist, commanded by Allah to … say really mean things about white people and unbelievers? Why is there no guilt-by-association for Obama with ANY of the murderers, crooks, Commies, kooks, anti-Semites and tax-evaders that comprise the rogues’ gallery of his life-long bosom friends and fellow travelers? Why is there no guilt-by-association for Obama due to his intimate ties to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn — who missed killing ME by 10 minutes in 1970, Valerie Jarrett, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Franklin Marshall Davis, just to name a few?
What a joke.
I just listened to the clip, you know when you don’t want to book real conservatives it really limits the number of different people you can have on. I can’t wait till 2010 & 2012. Proving those jokers wrong will be a great pleasure.
Update 3: Michelle on fire. Rush has a great quote:
Who knew the IOC was racist?
I bet Charles Johnson did!
Update 4:Rio Wins! This proves that the crime issue wasn’t a primary consideration against Chicago. It’s all O’Keefe’s fault, if it wasn’t for him and Hannah Giles and her bikini pics Acorn could have helped stuff the ballot. (yes Rush said it first but he didn’t mention bikini pics!).
The decision dashes the hopes of U.S. boosters — President Obama chief among them — who had put their reputations on the line to help win the games for Chicago. The announcement came as the president and first lady headed back to Washington after making a last-minute appeal to the International Olympic Committee as it met in Copenhagen.
The IOC decision was a major blow to Mayor Richard M. Daley, who spent three years working, cajoling and insisting that the games would be a boon for his city. The 67-year-old Daley, who has been in office for 20 years, was already grappling with low approval ratings, though it was an open question whether a winning Olympics bid would help or hurt those numbers.
Did the IOC look at Obama -who treats his nations’ traditional allies rather dismissively, and her enemies with too much deference- and see “weakness”?
I’ll never forget what Osama bin Laden said about the decision to attack the US on her own soil, that he saw the United States, throughout the 1990’s as “the weak horse.”
Beyond all the media madness concerning these Olympic Games, Obama’s losing a bid for Chicago may well be sending another sort of message altogether to the wrong people: America is weak.
If that is the sentiment being projected, then our own media have a hand in creating the impression of weakness. Yes, it’s worrisome.
Next time, perhaps they should consider relying on advocates who truly are proud of America and like her just the way she’s been. Yes, Sarah Palin does come to mind just now.
Not a Chance, Sarah Palin is much too smart to risk US prestige in this way.
That’s too bad. I was kinda looking forward to seeing President Palin speak at the opening ceremonies. . . .
Update 7: Apparently we are all unpatriotic for laughing at the Obamacult and their God’s ineptness. That is the line of the blogs of the left. Don Surber answers them:
The left confuses standing beside the nation in wartime — something the left by and large failed to do — with hoping an arrogant president and the corrupt City Hall machine that backs him fall flat on their faces on an international stage.
The left is now fully vested in the Cult of Personality, blindly following this twerp wherever he may lead.
The president risked all for a trifle.
But there is a grain of truth in the complaint from the left. But not for the reasons they stated.
“Chicago’s dismal showing today, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft,” Tim Reid wrote in the Times of London.
That is what hurts the nation and the world. President Obama pissed away the prestige of the presidency so the boys back home could line their pockets with kickbacks on an Olympian scale. In the sober aftermath, America did lose today. Obama — not the IOC — is to blame.
As I said at the top, we are laughing at the shock of the Obamacult, the rest of the world is laughing at us. As for the left which seems to have decided on their talking points, the last word goes to the blogfather:
…and what fits your template, can be illustrated by a simple YouTube video:
Note: Stacy really deserves the hits on this has he has done the legwork while I’m sitting on a couch a thousand miles away, but I’m posting it here in case you are unwilling to go to his site because Charles says you can’t.
Now tell me, you might believe her you might not but which is more solid reporting? The AP story quoted in the post, or the actual film of what she claims to have said. Given the choice which report would you believe?
I’ll bet that if the AP guy knew this:
Miss Brown says she is not a Republican, but is a registered Democrat and, during her 2008 senior year at Corbin High School, was actually a leader of students supporting Barack Obama for the presidency.
And the reports themselves? Stacy links to this story that says in part:
Rudzinski did comment on some of the reports circulating about the death.
“Misinformation is one thing, but pure speculation is another,” She said. “What we’re seeing the bulk of is speculation by people who don’t have direct access to the investigation.”
I’ve objected to some of the speculation myself, the bottom line from the story:
“Misinformation is much more damaging to our investigation than the correct or no information,” he said.
But hey who cares about facts or actually catching a killer when there are points to be scored against the right?
Consider this: She will be leaving high school and either going to college or looking or work, what do you think will happen when her name is googled (and you know it will be) and that quote comes up? That is messing with a young woman’s future. That’s despicable and dishonorable.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 