If Romney makes it to the White House, would he answer to his party or his church? They are pretty much one in the same.

Perhaps this explains the recent behavior of Harry Reid. The Mormon Church has a nasty habit of excommunicating those who do not follow church doctrine, much of which is dictated by church elders. If those elders asked Harry not to impede the president's grand plan, what would Harry do? How about bringing legislation to the floor that contained virtually everything the president could ever want.

that voters just don't want Hillary Clinton? She's had the highest negative numbers for months despite her own intense efforts to "let the voters know the real her." It's not the media's fault, it's not Mark Penn's fault, it isn't even Bill Clinton's fault (how frustrated he must be, Gore was even more engaging than this), it's Hillary's fault.

So as Hillary loses and John Edwards loses even worse (is that the media's fault too?, the formula becomes clear:

Hillary wins - it's because of the courage of the voters.

Hillary loses - it's because the media hates her and the voters are too stupid to see past their complete manipulation of everyone's perception despite the countless one-on-one sessions that Hillary has been having with voters since Iowa.

Wow, I can't believe we aren't all lining up to support someone who's failings are everyone else's fault but hers.

Because the voters haven't spoken yet. Nobody's voted, get it?

No bias, no criticism, no opinion? Didn't you folks just talk about how that sort of behavior regarding Bush was anathema? More surprising is this repudiation of the 1st Amendment.....

"The two-headed beast should be offered a choice: keep the Edison/Mitofsky/NEP exit polls or keep your FCC licenses. Then they should be told that knocking people out of the race on their pages or shows, before the public has expressed its opinion, in their debates, or in their actions and reports, will result in prosecution for election fraud."--ondelette

Looks like the Constitution is getting it from all sides. Heh.

Something you see time and again with the reich wingers on the net- the current Dem candidate is ALWAYS the MOST EVIL ONE EVER- far surpassing in vile evil than the last one.

Much like moonbats claiming that the current Republican is the worst one ever, and trying to reclaim the heritage of past Republicans they slandered at the time with just as much enthusiasm as they lie about this one.

That right-wing/establishment-media edifice is an incomparably destructive alliance -- and their tactics incomparably toxic -- no matter who their current target happens to be.

Amen and hallelujah. Expect "revelations" about Barack Obama that involve drugs (especially cocaine), criminal connections, sexual promiscuity, and basically anything else that will elicit visceral racist stereotypes (laziness? the use of black vernacular? I don't even know — whatever it is, they'll try it).

That's not to say that Obama is crippled by these things, any more than anyone else (including Edwards — think of all the jokes about ambulance-chasing lawyers). Let's just not read too much into what the conservative machine says about itself.

Bottom line Glenn, at this point, these criticisms are so oversimplified as to be completely counterproductive. At best, you are raising issues without defining what it is that would be an appropriate model or how what's inappropriate is affecting anything. And it bears mentioning that accepting that badly flawed viewpoint has clear political implications, which makes them emotive irrespective of whether or not you possess a political position.

Seriously, if you desire to go down this route, it is incumbent upon you to define in detail what precisely your model is for how the political press ought to comport themselves as juxtaposed against 'their crimes' of in many cases being imbued with American culture and simultaneously governed by human nature. And here I mean countries that you feel are functional by comparison with US dysfunction, not abstract notions of never neverland fairness. This may be a constructive angle to explore against the highly destructive precedent you've been following.

Or, put another way, I support Obama.

Glenn: Why on earth you are sticking to outdated concepts like fact-checking, ethical standards, and principled discussion in your column? Didn't you get the memo? "Ethics in Journalism" officially became an oxymoron in Feburary 2003.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.

FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”