David Kurtz's first reaction to Sarah Palin's comments on a hypothetical attack on Georgia (if the country were to become a NATO member) by Russia was to compose an entry headlined: "EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY"

But Kurtz conveniently left out the caveat that Palin specifically singled out "NATO" countries such as Georgia, not just "another country. And why did Kurtz conveniently suppressed this fact? Because NATO's chapter 5 states "that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.".

...which is exactly what Palin said.

How dishonest.

This site is calling Kurtz on his slickness.

Democratic/liberal website Daily Kos has partnered with Research 2000 to  measure voter preference on a daily basis.

liberal or conservative groups hiring independent pollsters is not a bad idea. But is Research 2000 an unbiased entity?

This is what Research 2000's president, part-timing as political pundit, recently had to say about John McCain's choice as vice-presidential candidate:

In my estimation as a pollster and analyst, while historic for the GOP in selecting their first woman on a national ticket, this choice may be the worst selection by a major party nominee for President in modern times.

Needless to say, pollsters should refrain from editorializing.

You will never read this kind of passionate, partisan rhetoric in the Gallup or Pew website, to mention just two of the most prestigious ones.

A recent cartoon by the Washington Post's Tom Toles (9-5-2008) read:

Watch out, Mr. Bush! With the exception of economic policy and energy policy and social and tax policy and foreign policy and supreme court appointments and Rove-style politics, we're coming in there to shake things up!

Then a few days laters, the same day of the "lipstick" remarks, Obama said:

"Maybe what they're saying is, 'Watch out George Bush,'" Obama said as he campaigned in Terre Haute, Ind. on Saturday. "Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove-style politics -- except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We’re really going to shake things up!"

Obama's spokesman now claims that he (Obama) unwittingly borrowed the line from a person who did not disclose the origin of the words in question.

Obama saw himself in the midst of a scandal early in the year when he "borrowed" words from his friend Deval Patrick, governor of Massachussets.

Because the truth is...Palin was never against it, as explained by media critic/political analyst Bob Somerby.

He criticizes liberals for saying that Palin "was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it," because according to Somerby, Palin was never against it. Let me explain:

Palin was for the bridge to nowhere, but moved to kill attempts to build it not because she opposed the project, but because in her own words, congress did not want to shell out the money:

PALIN (9/21/07): Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

An analogy would be me stalking and hitting on actress Scarlett Johanson, and giving up after 3 months because she showed no interest in sleeping with me.

I would be wrong in claiming to have been "for sleeping with Johanson before I was against it," because I was never against sleeping with her. I just gave up because my goal was impossible to achieve.

What do you think of this theory? I think Somerby hits the nail right on the head.

Because the truth is...Palin was never against it, as explained by media critic/political analyst Bob Somerby.

He criticizes liberals for saying that Palin "was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it," because according to Somerby, Palin was never against it. Let me explain:

Palin was for the bridge to nowhere, but moved to kill attempts to build it not because she opposed the project, but because in her own words, congress did not want to shell out the money:

PALIN (9/21/07): Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

An analogy would be me stalking and hitting on actress Scarlett Johanson, and giving up after 3 months because she showed no interest in sleeping with me.

I would be wrong in claiming to have been "for sleeping with Johanson before I was against it," because I was never against sleeping with her. I just gave up because my goal was impossible to achieve.

What do you think of this theory? I think Somerby hits the nail right on the head.

Obama supporters are crying foul because Obama just said something about McCain (lipstick on a pig) and is being falsely accused of  referring to Sarah Palin.

But Obama supporters have been there-done that, in their role as agitators against Hillary Clinton during the primaries. They were to Hillary what the right is to Obama nowadays.

Remember when Hillary said that LBJ helped Martin Luther King move the civil rights agenda forward? That was racist, the Obama campaign claimed, and the Huffington Post gladly repeated.

Now relax, and stop acting like hypocrites, which won't be easy, because you are hypocrites.

The chair of the largest feminist advocacy group in the United States, the National Organization for Women (NOW), has released a statement condemning attacks on Sarah Palin aimed at her duel role as mother of five and a candidate for the vice-presidency.

She criticizes conservatives for slamming Hillary Clinton when she decried sexist attacks against her, while denouncing similar treatment against Palin. She also makes it clear that Palin would be "terrible" for women's rights.

She also lets the media hear it about their own insinuations and double standards.

But I'd like to add (NOW apparently didn't want to antagonize Democrats) that many in leftist sites such as the Daily Kos, the Democrappy Underground, TPM, etc. have taken part in such kinds of slurs.

Keep pissing women off at your own peril. The polls should tell you something.

The chair of the largest feminist advocacy group in the United States, the National Organization for Women (NOW), has released a statement condemning attacks on Sarah Palin aimed at her duel role as mother of five and a candidate for the vice-presidency.

She criticizes conservatives for slamming Hillary Clinton when she decried sexist attacks against her, while denouncing similar treatment against Palin. She also makes it clear that Palin would be "terrible" for women's rights.

She also lets the media hear it about their own insinuations and double standards.

But I'd like to add (NOW apparently didn't want to antagonize Democrats) that many in leftist sites such as the Daily Kos, the Democrappy Underground, TPM, etc. have taken part in such kinds of slurs.

Keep pissing women off at your own peril. The polls should tell you something.

Greg Sargent, who is known for his refined fact-checking skills, seemed not to have done his homework before making the claim on August 29th that Sarah Palin "supports the teaching of creationism in public schools."
The following points undermine the claim:

1) In Sargent's link to this science blog, the evidence used to support the claim in question rests on an article that was accompanied by an immediate clarification by Palin to the effect that "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
Sargent did not include the clarification in his post. Besides, letting people debate is not teaching.

2) If Palin supports such move, why hasn't she pushed it in her state of Alaska?

3) Today, independent website Factcheck.org debunks certain Palin smears, including the bogus "Palin is for teaching creationism in school" claim.

We could make a case that we believe Sarah Palin is lying and will show her true colors if she becomes Vice-president. But that's speculation that shouldn't be stated as fact.

GA_googleFillSlot("Cafe-Leader"); var ACE_AR = {Site: '752622', Size: '728090'};

I'm not trying to suggest that the John McCain's campaign paid Daddy Yankee money or offered some sorts of benefits to Spanish Reggae superstar Daddy Yankee, but I just wonder why at a time when John McCain was doing extremely bad among Hispanic likely voters, one of the biggest (or the biggest) celebrity in the Latino artistic world comes out endorsing a Republican.

Let's not even talk about the fact that Daddy Yankee knows nothing about Politics. The Oprah case is different, because she is known to have a grasp of current events and politics, having interviewed the likes of Al Gore, Marina Oswald, etc.

His endorsement seems to target young people as well, which is a group where McCain lagged behind considerably, especially within the Latino universe of voters.

And if we focus on Puerto Ricans (Daddy Yankee is Puerto Rican) I as a New York Latino know that it's very difficult to find a Republican Puerto Rican in the United States.

Do you too smell a rat?