NPR Host Flacks for McCain

Many in the media have a not-so-subtle man crush on John McCain. If you don't believe me, read Eric Alterman's excellent cover story on McCain and the media in our magazine this week.

No less an authority than NPR--often reviled by conservatives for its alleged "liberal bias"--provided a startling confirmation of the press's love affair with McCain on Saturday morning, when NPR host Scott Simon considered it his journalistic duty to slam Barack Obama and defend McCain, abandoning all pretense of journalistic fairness.

Here's how Simon's smug and condescending "Reflections on race and the presidential election" began:

Senator Barack Obama says that in reversing his pledge to take public financing in the presidential campaign, he hopes to make campaign reform stronger. After he's raised half a billion dollars and won, of course. Maybe that's how former presidents of the Harvard Law Review say, "We had to destroy the village to save it."

Sen. Obama's reversal raises fair questions about the sincerity of his campaign promises, and even about the decency of spending so much money, maybe six times what his opponent will have, at a time when thousands of Americans are losing their homes and the price of food is becoming difficult to afford.

Wait a second. So Simon is blaming Obama for contributing to an economic recession, which is happening on the watch of George W. Bush, spurred by policies--like massive tax cuts to the wealthy--that McCain himself now supports? Meanwhile, not a word about McCain's own flip-flops on public financing...And, by the way, McCain and Obama raised the same amount of money last month. Only McCain's money was three times as likely to come in the form of a check of $1,000 or more.

From there, Simon accused Obama of playing the race card against McCain.

Sen. Obama made some remarks at a fundraiser last night, if he needs any more fundraisers, in Jacksonville, Fla. that may be overlooked in the debate over public financing...Sen. Obama said that Republicans are "going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Sen. Obama's opponent in the general election is John McCain, not a small band of jerks on the Internet. To my knowledge, Senator McCain has never mentioned Sen. Obama's race, much less in the tone Sen. Obama implied. What has John McCain ever done or said to merit the charge that he's going to make Sen. Obama's race an issue? In fact, the McCains had to endure a whispering campaign about their multiracial family during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

But Obama wasn't talking about McCain specifically; he was referring to the Republican Party writ large. And that very morning there was a front page article in the New York Times about how GOP operative Floyd Brown--the man who created the race-baiting Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis in 1988--is raising money for a smear campaign against Obama, using his Muslim heritage as a point of attack. Simon should check out Brown's website, so he can familiarize himself with what's coming. Then he won't be so shocked when Republicans use Obama's race, in ways coded and obvious, as a wedge issue in the run-up to November.

These facts probably don't fit within the parameters of Simon's worldview. To Simon--and so many of his colleagues in the press--Obama is an inexperienced, untrustworthy young Senator who's sullying the credibility of a great American war hero and man of honor who would never, ever stoop to running a negative campaign.

Comments (21)

1. The Beltway Paradigm is "Obama got a 'free ride' during the Primaries"....

   Soooooooooooo, they have to hit him NOW to prove how "fair" they are.

   Plus they like McCain cuz he sucks up to them.

   Posted by Mask at 06/23/2008 @ 12:54pm

2. 'Did I Mention He's Black?' By JAMES TARANTO

   "Barack Obama told a group of Florida donors Friday night that Republicans will try to make voters afraid of him, and suggested they would use his race to scare up votes for John McCain," Fox News reports:

   "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid," Obama said at the fundraiser. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black? He's got a feisty wife."

   The crowd of supporters cheered, and Obama added: "We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us."

   This is a very clever bit of rhetoric. For one thing, note how Obama conflates the entirely legitimate concern over his inexperience with prejudice against his race or "funny name." If you vote against him because he's green, you might as well be voting against him because he's black.

   For another, Obama is baselessly accusing Republicans of racial prejudice, or at least of cynically pandering to racial prejudice. But by wording this "accusation" as a prediction, Obama is able to cast aspersions without needing any evidence to back them up. He implicitly ascribes to the GOP the view that voters are prejudiced against blacks, then calls on voters to prove they are not by voting for Obama. The fear of GOP racism also provides black voters an extra motive to get to the polls.

   Of course, if Obama is right that voters reject "that old stuff," then none of this should matter. You ought to be able to choose between Obama and McCain on their merits, irrespective of race. It is Obama himself who, by calling attention to his race in this way, is employing the "old stuff": trying to take advantage of white guilt and black fear.

   Posted by Ethan08 at 06/23/2008 @ 1:51pm

3. So, Mr. Berman has noticed the success of the Republican campaign to take over NPR and make it pliable to stories of this sort. I'm shocked! Shocked that the GOP's efforts to strangle NPR funding and to stack its editorial positions with flesh-eating conservative zombies. Scott Simon is just one dimension of this turn of events.

   Don't act so shocked!

   Posted by Gus at 06/23/2008 @ 1:51pm

4. Maybe Mr. Simon hasn't seen this:

   http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/28/the-american -president.aspx

   If this ad isn't what Obama was talking about, I don't know what Simon's problem could be.

   Posted by maclib37 at 06/23/2008 @ 1:53pm

5. >>>To Simon--and so many of his colleagues in the press--Obama is an inexperienced, untrustworthy young Senator who's sullying the credibility of a great American war hero and man of honor<<<

   McCain a man of honor?

   McCain was part of the Keating 5! He interfered with a federal investigation on behalf of his campaign contributor, Charles Keating, who single-handedly led to the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry by investing the life savings of older and vulnerable Americans in risky real estate development ventures.

   McCain ADMITS he doesn't have a clue when it comes to economics, and his parroting the failed "trickle-down economics" of the past that favor the rich over everyone else demonstrates to any reasonable observer that McCain would be bad for America.

   The rich have done very well and do not need any further help from our government - now is the time for a president for the vast majority of Americans that are not rich!

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/23/2008 @ 2:00pm

6. I give it at most 3 hours before Frank is here for his daily Obama bashing....Sigh.

   Why do people stay so willfully ignorant?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/23/2008 @ 2:30pm

7. No question, McCain is a bad actor and even a cursory examination of his record and/or his life story would expose him as unfit for the office of the presidency of the United States. Unfortunately our so-called mainstream media has been largely dysfunctional for many years, if not decades now, and mostly refuses to lift a finger in effort to carry out its most sacred responsibility --expose the truth and fight against injustice.

   I reprint a heartfelt post of mine from KvH's "Editors Cut":

   I'd like to add a sincere thanks to The Nation for the freshly posted lead editorial in the latest issue.

   But I do have some strong points of contention as well.

   I was an outspoken voice on these threads back in November and December of last year in support of John Edwards' campaign because of the consistency and clarity of his progressive message. It was a significant disappointment to me when The Nation decided to endorse Barack Obama in spite of the fact that his platform was enveloped in a sort of fog of vagueness --that endorsement struck me as a somewhat reckless toss of the dice on an actively double-speaking candidate, and unprincipled in that a much clearer spoken progressive advocate was available, and fully in contention for the Democratic nomination.

   Yet, I also understood that on purely pragmatic grounds Obama might have been a better choice simply in terms of ability to beat out Hillary "DLC" Clinton, and win the White House.

   When The Nation endorsed Obama it was also clearly stipulated that progressives would be required to raise their voices, and pick up the pace of their activism to provide the force necessary to carry Obama to the left --and the new lead editorial reinforces that point.

   But here's my central beef:

   The Nation magazine, as a wide circulation progressive rag with significant play in the mainstream media, is perfectly positioned to firmly and effectively proclaim the progressive agenda. You are, in effect, the best placed set of vocal chords the progressive movement has. So, yes, I agree that progressives must amp up their action, but The Nation also needs to amp up the volume and firmness of their voice as well --after all, we endorsed Obama, so we must hold him robustly in the cross hairs of accountability to the progressive (and frankly, popular) agenda.

   Another significant bone of contention is this:

   The Nation's lead editorial mentions the Jim Johnson affair, and the Jason "Rubnomics" Furman appointment as potentially ominous signs, but neglects to mention the more internationally significant speech before AIPAC that Obama gave almost immediately after securing the Democratic nomination.

   This speech was a singular, sonorous thunderclap that essentially signaled the implosion of the Obama myth of hope for a sea change in Washington. Sure it was little reported on here in America --but that's hardly a surprise in the land of "winken, blinken and nod" media coverage of Israeli affairs-- but I am strongly disappointed that The Nation has also essentially given Obama's bombshell speech short shrift.

   That recent AIPAC event with its long list of fawning VIP attendees was symbolic of what an embarrassment our government has become in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

   I am not so naïve to not understand the name of the game, those with the gold make the rules. But it's a sad day when cherished progressive voices are silent, or at least muted, on matters of deep political significance.

   In closing, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of this juncture in American history, and progressives must find a way to synchronize our voices and apply maximum pressure on Obama to heed our cries.

   The Nation magazine's leverage will be critical in this effort.

   Post script:

   Even those who are starry eyed defenders of Obama should welcome the efforts of progressives to hold Obama to his (earlier in the campaign, implied) words. We are, in effect, the attendees at a scientific colloquium, and the onus is on us to ask the tough questions now, not later.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/23/2008 @ 2:31pm

8. "We have nothing to fear from each other," he said as he reached out to disaffected Democrats. "We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals." As soon as Mr McCain clinched the Republican nomination his office sent out a memo calling for "a respectful campaign focused on the issues and values that are important to the American people".

   I guess no one cares that McCain broke that promise the first chance he got.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/23/2008 @ 2:31pm

9. Even those who are starry eyed defenders of Obama should welcome the efforts of progressives to hold Obama to his (earlier in the campaign, implied) words. We are, in effect, the attendees at a scientific colloquium, and the onus is on us to ask the tough questions now, not later.----Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/23/2008 |

   Should we send money or gifts, B_KOOL, for your hard work?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 06/23/2008 @ 2:33pm

10. Years ago, during the wars in Bosnia, I loved listening to Scott Simon. Then it seemed to me he started moving to the right. I noticed this mainly in his comments about Israel, and his content choices and comments about things Jewish, in general. (In my view, none of this does any of us any good.) At some point his smugness and false piety began to remind me of Joe Lieberman, whose actions have long revealed a character, beneath all that, that has often seemed questionable to me. In matters of smugness, false piety, and the character underneath..isn't that nearly always the way?

    When I've listened to Simon since, it's without the earlier dedication and infatuation, and with alot more wariness re how seductive his personality and presentation can be. As it happens, I turned on NPR last Saturday just in time to hear the statement cited here, and turned it off in disgust. I love NPR/PBS, but have thought for awhile that many of us have trusted what we hear there, and without question, far more than we should. This has been especially true during the last few years, when we've needed them most.

    Thanks to Berman; I'd be glad to have this issue discussed in The Nation as an ongoing project. And by the way, Mark Shields has revealed his friendship (no problem there, except for the ill-disguised bragging - who needs it?), but also his strong bias toward McCain a few times now on The Newshour. When I've seen Shields do this, it's come across as clammy, shilling..very differently than when Brooks says something positive about Obama, Clinton, et al, which generally seems more neutral, and therefore, more appropriate.

    I hope for continuing articles about bias on NPR/PBS. They're so close to being all we have. NSaarinen

    Posted by nsaarinen at 06/23/2008 @ 3:13pm

11. NPR usually gives the 'conventional message', interviews the same talking heads, always take a "one person says this, another says that" approach to the news. No surprise here, as they also host the worn-out Daniel Shore, the rightist Cokie Roberts, and any number of elite Washington 'thought-makers.'

    Two NPR staffers, Leah Yoon and Laura Perloff, just joined the McCain camppaign.

    Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting discovered that most NPR sources are conservatives, not liberals. Here is a tally for 2005 from Jeff Dvorkin, their OWN ombudsman(!):

    American Enterprise -- 59

    Brookings Institute [sic] -- 102

    Cato Institute -- 29

    Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies -- 39

    Heritage Foundation -- 20

    Hoover Institute -- 69

    Lexington Institute -- 9

    Manhattan Institute -- 53

    There are of course, other think tanks, but these seem to be the ones whose experts are heard most often on NPR. Brookings and CSIS are seen by many in Washington, D.C., as being center to center-left. The others in the above list tend to lean to the right. So NPR has interviewed more think tankers on the right than on the left.

    The score to date: Right 239, Left 141.

    Here is the link to FAIR's own report:

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

    Posted by ElyDog at 06/23/2008 @ 3:43pm

12. "Sen. Obama's reversal raises fair questions about the sincerity of his campaign promises, and even about the decency of spending so much money, maybe six times what his opponent will have, at a time when thousands of Americans are losing their homes and the price of food is becoming difficult to afford."

    hmmm...let me paraphrase in my words...

    sen. obama showed he was not a moron by refusing to surrender a definate advantage to prove to partisan shits who would not have voted for him regardless that he is the inflexible, suicidally goody goody dipshit loser they all wish he were. at a time when the economic policies of those he opposes have led to the economic misery of millions he insists on using the same advantage shamelessly and usually the hallmark of his opponants (lots and lots of big $ - no whammies) to defeat them so as to have the opportunity to help all those suffering schmuks by actually getting elected...

    there. better.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2008 @ 3:47pm

13. "Why do people stay so willfully ignorant?"

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/23/2008

    People aren't "willfully" ignorant, they simply reject your reality and substitute them with their own...

    Posted by ACook at 06/23/2008 @ 5:13pm

14. People aren't "willfully" ignorant, they simply reject your reality and substitute them with their own...

    Posted by ACook at 06/23/2008

    Eh I don't think my reality is any better than anyone elses. But I do think some people stay willfully ignorant. They never bother to explore other realities than their own.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/23/2008 @ 5:41pm

15. I'd like to ask Mr. Simon where has he been for the last 8 years. The current administration under Carl Rove has done nothing but smear and attack (along with their compliant lapdog media buddies) everyone and anyone that refuses to go along with their agenda. The truth is Sen. Obama is young, and while he may not have any experience on the world stage, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. not only didn't have any foreign policy experience but he'd never really done any traveling outside of these here U.S. states. While Sen. McCain may have been a POW during VietNam, his promise of 100 years in Iraq really proves that he didn't learn the lessons that should have been learned from that travesty brought about by another set of lies. While I will not make side by side comparisons J.F. Kennedy didn't have an awful lot of international experience, and while I wasn't there he didn't turn out to be that bad. Sen. Obama can't be any worse than the thieving, lying, conniving pack of hyenas that never should have been voted into the office of the Presidency.

    Posted by Spiritgirl2 at 06/23/2008 @ 5:49pm

16. I am so happy to see that I was not the only ex-listener amazed & appalled by simon's hit job Saturday AM. ElyDog, b_kool_66, are right-on. NPR, started its shift right in the 90's when Newtie took over Congress, threatened funding and put political hacks like Ken Tomlinson in to institute watchers and insure the'right' guests counts "toed" the line. The only public broadcast media that I know of that is not corporate is Pacifica (with all their problems), Air America / Nova M, Free speech TV & Link TV. BTW, the link to TNR that maclib37 posted has been taken down.

    Here is the letter I wrote to NPR, Sunday AM (after my cool down period). I usually get a courtesy confirmation from NPR but not this time. Do you think I was out of line?

    PS – I have not drunk the Obama Kool-aid & believe that we (liberals, progressives, belivers in the US constitution, whatever we're called) have even harder work ahead starting the day after election day if we don't want to lose our democratic republic.

    TEXT OF LETTER TO NPR

    Scott Simon's morning segments tore me out of a semi-sleep sleep state and made me think I had somehow turned on fox news or another propaganda arm of corporate media. I was still pondering Mr. Simon's and Dan Shore's agreement that the FISA / phone amnesty compromise (effectively eviscerating the 4th amendment and doing great harm to the 6th) was a compromise that was working. I was wondering, aside from removing US citizens protections guaranteed under the constitution, where was the compromise, and what did they mean by "working". Then came the "Reflections" segment. First Mr. Simon's smug-sounding claim that Obama had "reversed his pledge to take public financing". Then his cute Vietnam analogy comparing Obama's decision to forgo public financing to the infamous "destroy the village in order to save it" quote – that was breathtaking. Even better, implying campaign money Obama would spend was somehow connected to Americans losing their homes and high food prices. Apparently, this didn't apply to Republicans or McCain's spending, or to Bush administration policies McCain has pushed and supported the last 7 years? Give me a break! Is it even relevant that Obama NEVER unconditionally agreed to take public financing? Apparently not to Mr. Simon. Obama's answer to this question when asked November 2007 and restated in Obama op-eds and many other sources the last year and a half was: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Obama's campaign has pursued an agreement but was unable to reach one. The McCain campaign refused to agree to control any of the extraneous forces that have made the McCain/Feingold bill virtually irrelevant in the last two election cycles. These include 527's (McCain say he can't and he WON'T control them), and direct political party's funding (the RNC has committed to "fund him by other means" allowing him to raise upwards of $70,000 each from individual donors). For the record, Obama's average donor has contributed $90 - $110 dollars each. Sixty-three percent of McCain donors gave $1,000 or more. Only 23 percent of McCain donors gave less than $200. I find it impossible to believe that someone as well informed and tuned into politics as Mr. Simon is unaware of the effect of "Swift Boat" and other methods of circumventing public finance law that effect our elections. Also, Mr. Simon made no mention that McCain violated FEC rules in 2007, using the promise of public financing as collateral to take out a loan that saved his campaign, giving him the money he needed for New Hampshire. When his financial picture has improved, he announced he wouldn't take the primary matching funds. Flip/flop. If we had a functioning FEC, this would be breaking the law, such as breaking campaign law has any consequences. But then Mr. Simon turned from smug to arrogant self-righteousness, transforming Obama's warning that Republicans, (NOT McCain), will try to make Americans very afraid and aware that Obama is, among other things, BLACK. Mr. Simon implies in the very next breath that Obama was accusing McCain personally of being racist. This is too much, even for Simon. Obama said the other side; the supporters of John McCain would do this. And yes some of these are the nuts on the internet – again remember 2004! I'm not sure if this political hit job fully qualifies and character assassination, but it comes real close. But if you want first person reasons why Obama should be concerned, here is some recent history of John McCain & his supporters' comments and actions, easily confirmed if you wish. In 2007 McCain celebrated the Martin Luther King holiday by attending the swearing-in of a Republican governor Gov. Bob Riley in Birmingham who belonged to an organization that excludes blacks. McCain famously opposed the federal MLK holiday. McCain continues to accept support from lobbyist Richard Quinn, whose association with racist tinged "Southern Partisan" magazine provided a platform to attack Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. He continues to discount the evils of slavery by suggesting that it was not as bad as it has been portrayed and that slaves were better off in slavery than out of it. McCain's FORMER Florida campaign chair Bob Allen resigned after making racist remarks (offered oral sex to cop because he said cop was black and made him afraid!) McCain hailed Ohio mega church pastor Reverend Rod Parsley as a spiritual adviser - Parsley has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it. McCain is on the record saying: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." McCain has tried to explain this but NEVER APOLOGIZED "Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas." "to declare divorces invalid because of someone who feels they weren't treated fairly in court; we are getting into a TAR-BABY of enormous proportions and I don't know how you get out of that." "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? -- Because her father is Janet Reno." McCain was on stage, present and participating when: David Bellavia made his derisive racist remark about Tiger Woods. John McCain hugged him and has not TO THIS DAY repudiated the statement. Asked by a supporter during the New Hampshire primary, "How do we beat the Bitch?" (HRC) McCain laughed and responded, "That's an excellent question." McCain has flip/flopped on Bob Jones interracial policies. Apparently McCain's well documented history of racist actions and comments, and policy flip/flops in general are of no concern to Mr. Simon. Neither are Obama's statement of the tactics to expect from the Republican Party, (not a bunch of nuts on the internet) worthy of Mr Simon's concern. Mr. Simon's show is no longer of any concern or interest to me or my wife.

    Posted by duke-rules at 06/23/2008 @ 6:05pm

17. SAME AS ABOVE, EDITED FOR EASIER READ (SORRY I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE PREVIEW DIDN'T SHOW WHAT A MESS IT LOOK LIKE TO READ!)

    Scott Simon's morning segments tore me out of a semi-sleep sleep state and made me think I had somehow turned on fox news or another propaganda arm of corporate media. I was still pondering Mr. Simon's and Dan Shore's agreement that the FISA / phone amnesty compromise (effectively eviscerating the 4th amendment and doing great harm to the 6th) was a compromise that was working. I was wondering, aside from removing US citizens protections guaranteed under the constitution, where was the compromise, and what did they mean by "working".

    Then came the "Reflections" segment. First Mr. Simon's smug-sounding claim that Obama had "reversed his pledge to take public financing". Then his cute Vietnam analogy comparing Obama's decision to forgo public financing to the infamous "destroy the village in order to save it" quote – that was breathtaking. Even better, implying campaign money Obama would spend was somehow connected to Americans losing their homes and high food prices. Apparently, this didn't apply to Republicans or McCain's spending, or to Bush administration policies McCain has pushed and supported the last 7 years? Give me a break!

    Is it even relevant that Obama NEVER unconditionally agreed to take public financing? Apparently not to Mr. Simon. Obama's answer to this question when asked November 2007 and restated in Obama op-eds and many other sources the last year and a half was:

    "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

    Obama's campaign has pursued an agreement but was unable to reach one. The McCain campaign refused to agree to control any of the extraneous forces that have made the McCain/Feingold bill virtually irrelevant in the last two election cycles. These include 527's (McCain say he can't and he WON'T control them), and direct political party's funding (the RNC has committed to "fund him by other means" allowing him to raise upwards of $70,000 each from individual donors).

    For the record, Obama's average donor has contributed $90 - $110 dollars each. Sixty-three percent of McCain donors gave $1,000 or more. Only 23 percent of McCain donors gave less than $200. I find it impossible to believe that someone as well informed and tuned into politics as Mr. Simon is unaware of the effect of "Swift Boat" and other methods of circumventing public finance law that effect our elections.

    Also, Mr. Simon made no mention that McCain violated FEC rules in 2007, using the promise of public financing as collateral to take out a loan that saved his campaign, giving him the money he needed for New Hampshire. When his financial picture has improved, he announced he wouldn't take the primary matching funds. Flip/flop. If we had a functioning FEC, this would be breaking the law, such as breaking campaign law has any consequences.

    But then Mr. Simon turned from smug to arrogant self-righteousness, transforming Obama's warning that Republicans, (NOT McCain), will try to make Americans very afraid and aware that Obama is, among other things, BLACK. Mr. Simon implies in the very next breath that Obama was accusing McCain personally of being racist. This is too much, even for Simon. Obama said the other side; the supporters of John McCain would do this. And yes some of these are the nuts on the internet – again remember 2004!

    I'm not sure if this political hit job fully qualifies and character assassination, but it comes real close.

    But if you want first person reasons why Obama should be concerned, here is some recent history of John McCain & his supporters' comments and actions, easily confirmed if you wish.

    In 2007 McCain celebrated the Martin Luther King holiday by attending the swearing-in of a Republican governor Gov. Bob Riley in Birmingham who belonged to an organization that excludes blacks. McCain famously opposed the federal MLK holiday.

    McCain continues to accept support from lobbyist Richard Quinn, whose association with racist tinged "Southern Partisan" magazine provided a platform to attack Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. He continues to discount the evils of slavery by suggesting that it was not as bad as it has been portrayed and that slaves were better off in slavery than out of it.

    McCain's FORMER Florida campaign chair Bob Allen resigned after making racist remarks (offered oral sex to cop because he said cop was black and made him afraid!)

    McCain hailed Ohio mega church pastor Reverend Rod Parsley as a spiritual adviser - Parsley has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

    McCain is on the record saying:

    "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." McCain has tried to explain this but NEVER APOLOGIZED

    "Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas."

    "to declare divorces invalid because of someone who feels they weren't treated fairly in court; we are getting into a TAR-BABY of enormous proportions and I don't know how you get out of that."

    "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? -- Because her father is Janet Reno."

    McCain was on stage, present and participating when: David Bellavia made his derisive racist remark about Tiger Woods. John McCain hugged him and has not TO THIS DAY repudiated the statement.

    Asked by a supporter during the New Hampshire primary, "How do we beat the Bitch?" (HRC) McCain laughed and responded, "That's an excellent question."

    McCain has flip/flopped on Bob Jones interracial policies.

    Apparently McCain's well documented history of racist actions and comments, and policy flip/flops in general are of no concern to Mr. Simon. Neither are Obama's statement of the tactics to expect from the Republican Party, (not a bunch of nuts on the internet) worthy of Mr Simon's concern.

    Mr. Simon's show is no longer of any concern or interest to me or my wife.

    Posted by duke-rules at 06/23/2008 @ 7:02pm

18. I heard Renee Montaine say that McCain being down in the polls was "bad news" this morning. It soundly strangely impartial for NPR. I wonder if NPR is trying to seem more right-friendly since congress is discussing the public broadcasting budget this week.

    Posted by jillers at 06/24/2008 @ 12:38am

19. Der...I meant strangely PARTIAL in my previous post. Shame on NPR! I also noticed they held an extra fund-raiser over the weeked, although it seemed half-assed.

    Posted by jillers at 06/24/2008 @ 12:41am

20. NRP REPLY TO ABOVE LETTER RE: SCOTT SIMON

    Here is reply I recieved Tuesday AM

    Thank you for contacting NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.

    While we gladly welcome feedback from our listeners, NPR is steadfast in its zero-tolerance policy on harassment, which includes the receipt of offensive E-mail. Once detected, messages deemed potentially offensive are re-routed and not read by NPR staff.

    Please re-submit your thoughts, tastefully, and we will do our best to address your concerns.

    Thank you.

    NPR Policy on Harassment:

    NPR recognizes its responsibility to maintain a work environment free from any form of harassment, including sexual harassment. NPR will not tolerate any activity that is demeaning or interferes with an employee's work environment based on any factor prohibited by law, such as listed in the EEO Policy statement or a protected category. This includes, but is not limited to jokes, statements and gestures made by supervisors, co-workers and non-employees such as vendors, contractors, interns and volunteers. E-mail, NPR Intranet and the internet may not be used at NPR for any purpose that violates this policy.

    Thank you for listening to Weekend Edition Saturday, and for your continued support of public broadcasting. For the latest news and information, visit NPR.org.

    Where was the "harassment"?

    PS - NPR reported this AM that McCain & Obama were close to even in 'Cash on Hand' and the repubs had about $50 mill more than the Dems on the party level.

    No need for any additional fundraising?

    Posted by duke-rules at 06/24/2008 @ 01:37am

21. I have to laugh, NPR has one host who one day speaks with unmistakable candor about Barack Obama among the otherwise love smitten media and it sends the leftists at Nation into a crying fit. NPR for secular sake! The public mouthpiece for liberals everywhere. NPR had the nerve to call Barack out on his flip-flop position on government funded campaigning. Obama was unmistakable in his highroad desire to "aggressively" pursue matching government funding. But that was when he calculated that he would need the money and could lead a moral browbeat of his GOP competitor that the campaign reform obsessed popular media would willingly ride home for him. Today, Obama doesn't need the cash! That's the only reason why he reversed himself. Did any of you nannies cry foul when NPR bashed John McCain over his gas tax proposal for two weeks straight while Obama was praised for his "bravery" and economic honestly, citing economists everywhere for intellectual support? Quick, who on NPR (or anywhere else) gave attention to the views of those same economists with regards to Obama's enthusiastic vote for the Farm Bill? Which NPR host highlighted Sen. McCain's far braver vote against that Farm bill nonsense? Additionally, stop with the rightwing bogy man excuse for Obama's cop-out on govt matching campaign funds. These heaven help us warnings of a right-wing onslaught are pathetic. Any concern for the nasty leftist attacks on McCain? Once again, Republicans are painted as the agents of character assassination, while Democrats are angels whose style is sweet civility and whose substance is the refreshing truth. Couple things more regarding Barack's excuses; almost half of his donations do come from big donors. Second, those 527's Obama fret's about, they were started by liberals who had them up and running to skirt campaign finance laws before the McCain/Fiengold ink was dry. Today, the top one hundred 527's are 90% leftwing with funds far outstripping those of any one, or group of, conservative 527's

    Posted by hughm88 at 06/25/2008 @ 2:03pm