Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Does Media Matters Really Want People To Listen To This Tape?

    Does Media Matters Really Want People To Listen To This Tape?

    Media Matters, as part of its new “get Fox News” agenda, is spinning a tape of Bill Sammons of Fox News made in 2009 as reflecting dishonesty as to “mischievous speculation” in 2008 as to whether Obama had socialist tendencies.  Needless to say, the left-blogsphere has reacted with glee.

    But listen to the actual audio, and two things are clear.

    First, the word “mischievous” was related to Sammons’ use of the word just moments before related to James Carville.  And it is not clear what was the “mischievous speculation” to which Sammons was referring.  Sammons statement that he thought it was “far-fetched” is not a confession of lying, which is the Media Matters Spin.  Sammons describes the language as “inartful” and that he was dealing with the issue because it was in the news.

    Second, and this is the part Media Matters doesn’t highlight, Sammons made a case for why he feels those concerns about Obama — whether mischievous or not — actually had come true.

    “Now imagine my surprise when this year, I witness President Barack Obama standing in the cross hall of the White House and having taken over the American car industry, look into the camera, and announce to the nation essentially, that he would personally vouch for the warranty on your car’s muffler. All of a sudden, the debate over whether America was heading for socialism seemed anything but far-fetched…The debate over whether America is headed for socialism seems all too real, especially to those who still believe in capitalism.”

    Listen, and you decide.

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    OK, last one – MM is also ignoring that Dems were issued orders to serve up the *extreme card*.

    Big Government Democrats and Big Government Republicans seem to be in denial that they're all socialists. Referring to them as socialists is not a slur — it is a fact.

    When money and/or property is forcibly taken from A through coercive taxation, and it is given to B, how is that not a socialist redistribution of wealth? Consequently, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the new health scam, food stamps, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, government grants, government subsidies, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification programs, TARP, etc. are all socialist programs. While most are transfers to individuals, some are corporate welfare. They're all socialism.

    Obama did not put us on the road to serfdom, I mean socialism, FDR did. And we've been voting for more of it ever since. Our parents had a chance to halt it, even potentially roll it back, in 1964. Instead they voted for even more of it with LBJ and his Great Society. Our generation decided to aggressively accelerate the adoption of socialism. Why else would we have given liberal Democrats total control of all three houses of government, including electing a man who boasted in his book of seeking out Marxist professors in college, whose roots are in the socialist redistributive efforts of community organizing, and who had the most liberal voting record in the senate to be our president?

    Norman Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America (and grandfather of Evan Thomas, once a Newsweek assistant managing editor, Princeton professor, and talking head policy wonk on TV), had it exactly right when he said:

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

    Obama IS a socialist, as is EVERY Democrat and the vast majority of Republicans. Media Matters protest too much.

    Number one: the man's name is spelled Sammon. No final S.

    Number two: the point is that the Fox guy knowingly stated things he thought at the time were not true for partisan gain. That he has now talked himself into believing these things to be true is actually evidence of confirmation bias. The makers of the Loose Change 9/11 Truth film have a remarkably similar story to tell – they were first writing fiction, and it turned out to be TWUE, TWUE, TWUE! It's called confirmation bias. At Fox, you're soaking in it.

    Oh good Lord, Joseph Gobbels…er…Nobles, can't any of you leftards read for comprehension? Sammon wasn't "knowingly stated things he thought at the time were not true for partisan gain", he was discussing something he found at the time to be far-fetched. Later events proved that it wasn't so far-fetched at all. There's an entire universe of difference between the two statements.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend