Obama vs. Fox

Google “Black Panther voter intimidation” and you get results. With a decided preponderance of Washington Times, Fox News, and Michelle Malkin sort of “sources”.

By comparison, a source I trust, Talking Points Memo, has a very different take on the matter at hand, offered here:


By their reckoning, much ado about not much. Since I have yet to be burned by trusting them, I think I shall.

But that’s not quite my point. My point is that this issue, while trivial, is at best controversial, solid fact is not available, we have only interpretations.

But you, without so much as blinking, offer us the most damaging interpretation possible, without so much as hinting that the matter is far from certain. With bland certainty, you offer the most negative possible interpretation of Obama’s actions (or inactions).

The same applies to your assertion that Obama’s Communications Director is a “Mao groupie”, an assertion I find laughable, but you offer as though you had an affidavit from God Almighty, countersigned by Archangel Gabriel.

You offer a puzzlement. You loudly declaim your faithful loyalty, and yet seem eager to believe any slander offered to Obama without so much as a blink. We must not dismiss our opponents “out of hand”, you claim, and that is as may be. But why are you required to swallow any spoonful of horseshit with a big smile and an “Mmmmmm-good!”?

You are watching my back? Perhaps you could watch my back from well in front of me, about twenty yards or so? Because, to be perfectly frank, I don’t trust you.

It wasn’t a criminal case, it was a civil case. They were found guilty in a “default judgement”.



Guys in uniforms carrying a nightstick stand out side a polling place to intimidate voters … you are defending this? They lost the case by default, because they didn’t even show up to try to defend themselves. Still think that they were oh-so-innocent? The publisher of the Village Voice, hardly a right-wing news organization, begs to differ …

Where in the world do you get this definition? Ever heard of radical anti-abortion protestors?

I can’t believe you even wrote that. What you’ve done is invented a definition of “radical” that says it’s someone who acts like Barack Obama does. That’s a tautology.

Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to Nixon’s radical domestic proposal for reforming the welfare system of the United States.

First, Obama must establish a program of national health insurance that is comparable to Richard Nixon’s own radical proposals

In August 1969, Nixon appeared before the nation with a radical scheme, …

No it wasn’t - Mao never said that. Cite.

So your favorite bit is that part where they lied in its allegations against FoxNews. Imagine that.


[pedantic sniff] To be strictly correct, “radical” means that one asserts the necessity of addressing “root causes”, that change must take place at a fundamental level, at the very foundations of the political system. [/pedantic sniff]

By comparison, a wishy-washy liberal wuss believes that we can tinker and adjust the capitalist death machine and, eventually, transform it into a solar-powered rainbow extruder.

Speaking as a non-revolutionary radical, I do not agree.

The quote was not attributed to Mao, it was attributed to John McCain, and he did say it. Cite

Nice try at sleight of hand there. Better luck next time.

Think about this for a second. Why would the Black Panthers be preventing black voters from accessing their polling station?

I give up … why? Perhaps to intimidate the white voters at the polling station? Perhaps to intimidate black voters who might have voted for McCain? I don’t know why the Black Panthers want to intimidate voters … but what does it matter?

Or perhaps this unidentified man has it right …


You’re suggesting that NO white voters voted there?

How do you explain the eyewitness testimony that they called someone a ‘cracker’? Do you know a lot of black crackers?

As I have mentioned many times, I don’t like or watch Fox News. But I still think we need them. The issue of the Justice Department sweeping the Black Panther case under the rug is a great example of why.

I did a Google search on “black panthers polling place” on each of the news sites. The results were:

Fox News, 86 hits

CBS News, 28 hits

CNN News, 27 hits

ABC News, 6 hits

MSNBC News … 0 hits

For a free press to work, you need to have news people on both sides of the political aisle. If all we had was MSNBC, we would know nothing of the egregious actions of the Justice Department. In this particular case, I find the actions of MSNBC to be as reprehensible as those of Fox News in other cases … but I would not say that because of this, MSNBC is not a news organization. In this instance, they are just the mirror image of Fox. Which is a good thing.

This is why we need both sides. Muckrakers are valuable no matter whether they are conservative or liberal. Fox digs up dirt on the White House. MSNBC ignores dirt on the White House … are we surprised?

On the other hand, for the White House to attack Fox for muckraking merely makes them look like they are afraid of what might be dug up … which is definitely not a good tactic.

If doing “radical” things does not make one “a radical”, what kinds of things can one do to earn such a label?

Ah, so doing leftist (liberal) things makes one “a radical”, right?

Oh, wait:

So, doing radical things does not make one a radical - being on the “far left” of the political spectrum of the US makes one radical. But it’s quite different than “liberal”.

Here’s how Fox “News” covered the news in NY-23 yesterday afternoon. No spin in those early reports. No sir.


13 votes were cast there by white voters. Doesn’t seem like a very effective use of their time, does it? Especially considering that if they were doing what they’re accused of it would probably have scared away more than 13 black voters.

Searching for “black panthers polling station” on MSNBC’s own search engine returns 30 hits.

I’d like a cite for the statement that the pollice place was in an ‘all black neighborhood’, please. The polling station was in in Philadelphia’s 4th Ward.

Out of curiousity, I watched Glen Beck today for the second time. My stomach couldn’t stand more than a few minutes, but I was surprised to see that he spent most of his time attacking the GOP … I didn’t expect that.

Shows what I know …

Was this poll taken on Fox News’ website?

From here:

ETA: Look, I’m not saying nothing untoward happened. I am saying that it doesn’t make sense for the Black Panthers to attempt to intimidate black voters. The injunction which the Justice Department sought - while still under Bush - also suggests a lack of evidence. The Panthers were barred from “brandishing a weapon outside a polling station in Philadelphia”. Shockingly enough, brandishing a weapon outside a polling station is already illegal.

Well, I was responding to Flonks talking about the Limbaugh quote. Flonks quoted from an interview with Rush, saying:

(Limbaugh actually said we have “never seen this kind of radical leadership at such a high level of power”, so Flonks’ paraphrase was accurate.)

Now, perhaps Rush meant that Obama was radically conservative, but I kind of doubt it. I kinda think he meant radically liberal, but YMMV, perhaps you believe Rush thinks Obama is too conservative for him …

So I responded that I think Obama is the most radical (i.e. obviously from context radically liberal) president we’ve had, and I’m glad he is.

Of course, the grammar police had to point out that “radical” can mean radical right like Nixon and GWB. Yes, I know that. I also know it can mean the square root sign, or a group of two atoms bound together as one unit, or the form of a word after all prefixes and suffixes are removed …

So? How is this even remotely relevant to what we were discussing, Rush’s comment?

Hang on… You said it was an ‘all-black neighborhood’, implying that white voter intimidation couldn’t have happened because there were no white voters.

But that’s not true, is it? There ARE white voters who vote there. It’s a predominantly black neighborhood, which is a whole different matter. Let’s say the neighborhood was 80% black. That would mean perhaps 20% of all voters were intimidated.

I looked up the 4th Ward myself. I couldn’t find any specific demographic information, but I found lots of photos and articles which showed plenty of white people.

And frankly, I find it most likely that the black panthers would try to intimidate white voters in exactly this kind of area - one they claim as their ‘own’, and in which the majority of people won’t oppose them. And perhaps one where they see ‘white votes’ as being unrepresentative of their neighborhood and they want t to send a unified message of black support or whatever.

The fact is, you said it was an all-black neighborhood. It’s not. Your implication was that if it was all-black, then no voter intimidation was possible because there were no whites to intimidate. When I asked for a cite, you tried to pass off a cite that says it is a ‘largely’ black community. For the purposes of determining if voter intimidation was possible, it’s not the same thing at all.

First, “largely African-American” ≠ “all Black”.

Regarding the injunction, from the DOJ website:

So I’m not sure what your point is … from the video, my guess is that the NBPP claimed that they weren’t intimidating anybody, the guy just happened to be carrying a nightstick. For self defense. In case something happened. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

The DOJ replied with an injunction against carrying any weapons around polling places … because contrary to your claim, as near as I can tell carrying a nightstick near a polling place is not illegal. I find laws making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon or a deadly weapon into a polling place, but I find no laws against carrying nightsticks outside the polling place … hence the injunction.

ETA - what Sam Stone said, but faster and clearer than me.