Liberal Hypocrisy Example #323

Just wanted to point out another example of liberal hypocrisy (i know, i know they're everywhere). James Carville and someone else the other day (can't remember) brought up the idea that John Kerry isn't running for election this year and that we're not reliving the 2004 election. Funny, because all you hear from every Democrat out there is about George Bush this, George Bush that, that they're against George Bush on this issue/that issue, my opponent voted with George Bush 90% of the time, etc. In the Cardin-Steele debate from last Sunday on MTP, Cardin/Russert brough up Bush 7 times in about 45 minutes. So I find it laughable when people like Carville complain that Kerry's remarks aren't relevant and say that he isn't the issue when they have been trying to do the exact same thing regarding George W Bush for the last 6 months.

MMFA likes to twist words

On a recent item here, MMFA showed exactly why they are completely biased and unreliable. Read the following section from that article:

"During the discussion, Powers claimed that "there actually are some substantive problems with the Michael J. Fox ad that I think are fair criticisms, such as claiming his opponent doesn't support stem cell research. Not true. Doesn't support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which are really two completely different things." In fact, as Media Matters documented, in his McCaskill ad, Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research," and Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research. As Media Matters has noted, while Talent supports adult stem cell research, he is opposed to stem cell research that involves "destroying a human embryo." Talent has also opposed a proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to legalize stem cell research in the state and has voted against easing the restrictions President Bush imposed on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research."

Now, the word twist happens here: "Fox stated that McCaskill's Republican opponent, Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), "opposes expanding stem cell research," and Talent has indeed opposed expanding some forms of stem cell research."

Notice how MMFA joins those 2 statements together in that the second affirms the first ("has indeed") but that the 2nd statement has the words "some forms of" inserted whereas the first statement says "opposes expanding" withougt any clarifiers. Thus, it would appear that the first statement means to ALL types of stem cell research whereas the 2nd statement makes it clear that Talent only opposes expanding SOME forms of stem cell research; not stem cell research in general. They're tricky. But not too slick for us..