MRC Peddles Bogus Obama 'Apology Tour' Meme Topic: Media Research Center
We didn't get around to writing about this when it first came around -- it got lost in the shuffle of pre-election Obama-hate -- but it's still worth highlighting.
The Media Research Center's Brent Baker took to the Fox News website on Oct. 23 to defend right-wing accusations that -- in the face of all honest fact-checking -- President Obama went on an "apology tour." Baker rather absurdly claimed that it's "flimsy reasoning" to point out that Obama never actually used the word "apologize."
Baker even more absurdly bashed CNN's John Berman for failing to "understand the concept of a metaphor" by declaring that Obama's criticism of past foreign policy did not constitute an apology.
The only evidence Baker presents of an "apology tour" is that the conservative Heritage Foundation declared it such:
There’s hardly a shortage, however, of examples of Obama chastising past U.S. foreign policy, so many so that just five months into Obama’s term the Heritage Foundation was able to produce a “Top 10 Apologies” list, starting with the speech in France which Berman quoted.
While Baker cited an openly partisan group to back up his views, he made no mention of the fact-checkers that President Obama correctly noted backed up his claim that there was no apology tour.
FactCheck.org: "Nowhere did we see that the president “apologized” for America. In some speeches, Obama was drawing a distinction between his policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. In other instances, Obama appeared to be employing a bit of diplomacy, criticizing past actions of both the U.S. and the host nation, and calling for the two sides to move forward."
PolitiFact: " We set out to discover whether Obama really had apologized in his speeches, and what he was apologizing for. But in our review of his words, we came up short. Yes, there is criticism in some of his speeches, but it's typically leavened by praise for the United States and its ideals, and often he mentions other countries and how they have erred as well. There's not a full-throated, sincere apology in the bunch. And so we rate Romney's statement False."
Washington Post's Glenn Kessler: "The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context."
Indeed, the Heritage Foundation assessment Baker puts his faith in appears to take Obama's quotes out of context in order to paint them as part of an "apology tour."
But that sort of slipshod and dishonest "research" is how the MRC operates as well -- to the point that it attackedfact-checkers for doing the fact-checking it wouldn't -- so it's no surprise that Baker would take refuge in it as well.
Joseph Farah's Post-Election Solution: Send Him More Money Topic: WorldNetDaily
One of WorldNetDaily's longtime money-making schemes is charging its readers to send letters on their behalf, so it's no surprise that WND editor Joseph Farah would peddle the idea that the way to react to President Obama's re-election is to send him more money.
In his Nov. 9 column, Farah declared he had an "answer" to Obama's re-election -- the revival of his "No More Red Ink" campaign, in which you pay WND $29.99 (Farah benignly describes that "investing less than $30") for the privilege of "sending individually addressed letters in red ink to all 241 Republicans in the House by guaranteed Fed Ex delivery" telling them not to raise the federal debt limit. Farah does his best to sell it: "Let’s just say it’s a bargain at that price. Try to imagine what it would cost you to send 240 individual letters to Republican House members if you did it yourself. We do all the work and guarantee the delivery."
Farah provides no evidence that spamming members of Congress with letters accomplishes anything.
In his Nov. 11 column, Farah makes dubious accusations that the election was stolen, citing as one piece of evidence Aaron Klein's identity fraud stunt. But this eventually turns into a fund-raising pitch:
I’m challenging the Obama campaign on the acceptance of those illegal donations. I’ve filed a Federal Elections Commission complaint at considerable cost. I have no illusions that it will be easy to challenge a sitting president within his own bureaucracy. But I’m doing it. Meanwhile, some in the press would prefer that I be charged with voter fraud for efforts to expose the system. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Democrat machine tries something like that.
That’s why we need your help.
We’re fighting to preserve America’s freedom here – nothing less.
We’re fighting to preserve the concept of representative government – elections that actually mean something.
We’re fighting to expose what no other news agency in the world apparently has an interest in exposing – the dark underbelly of corruption, fraud and abuse in our political system.
Can you help?
The column includes numerous links to a page at the WND store for WND's "2012 Voter Fraud Challenge," in which it is noted that "WND filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission charging the Obama campaign with knowingly accepting foreign contributions without even a modicum of scrutiny," based on Klein's little identity fraud stunt. The page helpfully suggests that it will accept donations of up to $5,000.
One has to wonder if Farah is simply ginning up anti-Obama hatred just so he can try to make a buck on it.
AIM's Kincaid Ignores His Own Role In Bad Conservative Media Topic: Accuracy in Media
The re-election of President Obama prompted some soul-searching on the part of Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid -- though, sadly, not enough.
In a Nov. 7 column, Kincaid noted how "prominent conservative news personalities made major miscalculations about where the election was heading and the nature of the two candidates and their campaigns,' and took Fox News to task since "the personalities on Fox News were wildly off the mark in their predictions for the election."
Kincaid followed up with a Nov. 9 column in which he noted: "Conservative use of flawed polling data has played into the hands of the liberal media. In order to recapture credibility in covering politics, the conservative media will have to acknowledge not only the bias on the other side, but the bias on their own."
But Kincaid has yet to acknowledge his own role in advancing conservative misinformation. As we pointed out, Kincaid laughably claimed on Nov. 1 that anti-Obama filmmaker Joel Gilbert "has nothing to hide" -- even as he refused to divulge who was funding the mass mailing of his film "Dreams From My Real Father" to households in swing states.Kincaid also ignored the fact that Gilbert's film has been discredited by Loren Collins, who has detailed Gilbert's falsehoods and deceptions.
If Kincaid can't admit his own failings and deceptions, it's not really that much of a mea culpa.
WND Issues Another Dishonest Fact-Check Topic: WorldNetDaily
You know how a couple months back, WorldNetDaily did an ostensible debunking of a chain email about the number of executive orders President Obama has issued that nevertheless treated the claim as if it true? Well, they've done it again.
A Nov. 10 WND article by Drew Zahn is headlined "Is THIS what Obama meant by 'revenge'?" Zahn then writes:
When Barack Obama said on the campaign trail, “Voting is the best revenge,” was this what he meant?
A quote allegedly by Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett has been spreading like wildfire online lately: “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready, because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over, and we have two judges ready to go.”
It's not until the third paragraph that Zahn gets around to telling the truth:
The quote, however, is suspect and is at best four steps removed from Jarrett herself.
Though repeatedly widely in hundreds of blogs and even the website of a Philadelphia newspaper, the original source of the quote appears to be a blog site called The Ulsterman Report.
Yet even “Ulsterman” doesn’t claim to have actually heard the words spoken.
So, it's not true, and there's no proof that it is. Yet the headline and first two paragraphs of Zahn's article treats the invented quote as if it's real.
MRC's Graham Leads A Freakout Over A Boy Wearing A Dress For Halloween Topic: NewsBusters
From the folks who brought you the freakout over a mom painting the toenails of her 5-year-old son, it's ... a freakout over a boy wearing a dress on Halloween.
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham uses a Nov. 10 NewsBusters post to go into freakout mode over a Huffington Post item by a woman (who works for CNN) who said her son wanted to dress up as the Disney fairy Silvermist for Halloween, and she helped put together the outfit.
Graham sneered, "You might know you’re on The Huffington Post when you find an article headlined 'My Son Wore a Dress for Halloween.'" He continued, "Like a good liberal, she fears that her son will be pressured to change" and added that "the mother was ready to claw into anyone who suggested disapproval of this transvestite routine in any way."
Remember, the MRC has quite the anti-gay agenda, and this extends to transgenderism, real or perceived. Though it's difficult to fathom how Graham ranting about a boy in a dress falls under NewsBusters' claimed mission of "exposing and combating liberal media bias."
It is time for Americans to dig deep and prepare for the worst. During his first term, Obama enacted, or made overtures toward enacting, everything I anticipated he would. I expect that the economy will continue to deteriorate, as will our standing in the international community. Islamists here and abroad will become bolder, and efforts to stultify this domestically will be met with accusations of racism and intolerance, and occasionally, resistance and prosecution under civil-rights statutes.
Our liberties under the First and Second Amendments in particular will be directly and vigorously attacked under this administration. Illegal immigration will soar, and violence along the southern border will continue to escalate. Energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket” as Obama openly pronounced was his desire. This will include fossil fuels (gasoline), which will translate into skyrocketing prices for everything one can imagine, including food. Should any of this lead to civil unrest, so much the better, as it will give Obama the chance to shore up and perhaps even test his nascent totalitarian infrastructure.
WND founder Joseph Farah and radio host Glenn Beck both had a somewhat Old Testament take on the outcome of this election, something I am also inclined to do. In that book, there are many examples wherein the whole of Israel had to suffer because a preponderance of Israelites insisted upon embracing ungodly things – or ungodly kings.
They are mindless. They are ravenous. They are innumerable. They shamble in great hordes, always a mob, moving ever in lock step with those to either side and ahead of them. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be bargained with. They hear nothing but their own moans and the screams of their victims. Left to their own devices, they will overwhelm any space they occupy, consuming their own population, ripping apart social and civil convention, until nothing remains but a horde of rotting corpses – idiot creatures who have no idea what they are or how they have come to this pass, decaying imbeciles who cannot comprehend the destruction they have wrought.
They are Democrats.
When illiterate cretins bark proudly about “Obamaphones,” when fools ignorant of economics actually believe socialized medicine is “free health care,” when the open-borders crowd looks the other way while English becomes a minority language and illegal aliens swamp the welfare rolls while swelling the prisons, we’ve already reached that point. Half of all Americans actually wanted four more years of Barack Hussein Obama. The margin wasn’t even thin. When a president this bad, in an economy this bad, surrounded by scandals this bad, is easily re-elected, the republic is lost.
Romney’s “47 percent” is really 50 percent. Half of your fellow citizens are zombies. They are mindless. They are hungry. They are a threat to you. They will keep voting to take your freedom and give themselves “free” stuff until they kill us all.
It is morning in Amerika, and the majority of people who voted to re-elect Barack Obama president don’t even know it. Everything appears to be normal, but everything has changed. The United States will not be the same.
I have never felt that all was lost after a single election as I do today.
So, in addition to my question about why the Duplicitous Despot directed Susan Rice to appear on five major television shows and say that the Benghazi attack was nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration that resulted from a video, I have another question: Why isn’t anyone – say, for example, Republican House and Senate members! – talking about criminally indicting Barack Obama? Or, at a minimum, starting impeachment proceedings against America’s make-believe president?
Cultural institution after cultural institution fell to the so-called, misnamed “progressives.” (They should really be called “retrogressives,” because they are not moving people forward as America’s founders did. They are move them backward – toward state power. They are not removing the shackles from the people and placing them on the government as the founders did. They are putting government’s shackles back on the people.)
Today, with the unthinkable, unimaginable re-election of Barack Obama, the revolution is nearly complete.
America has forsaken her first love. She has finally, and fully, given herself over to a licentious Lothario with whom she has increasingly flirted since her youth. He is sin – and, notwithstanding full knowledge of who he is and what he intends, with him she has lain.
America has tasted the poisonous fruits of lust, pride, passion, and envy – sloth, frivolity, iniquity and entitlement. She has tasted of their sweet deception and found it irresistible. She has danced in the streets, intoxicated by the very poison that will be her undoing.
America has rebelled against God. She has shaken her fist at Him and arrogantly cried, “We don’t need you. We don’t want you. We know better than you. Now go away.”
Well, America went to the polls. At least 120 million or so of us did.
Over 56 million voted one way, for one direction, for one set of principles – and some 58 million voted for an entirely different set. And so the larger group takes all of us, the whole of America, in their chosen direction.
Without going into all the specifics, the lesser number voted for fiscal responsibility, limited government, respect for the Constitution and law itself, proven experience in management and success in financial matters, and adherence to time-honored, biblical values. For strong military defense, commitment to Israel and traditional families. Dull stuff like that.
Friend, our people have rejected the very same God and His way, and clamored after a king who has promised to provide, protect and lead them into a Promised Land where “everybody has everything.” So that same God must take His hand off those who have rejected Him and allow them to reap the consequences.
Many times in the history of the world, God has destroyed His people and started anew when they strayed from His word. Just ask Noah what the flood was all about! This time, even with the floods of Hurricane Sandy and the re-election of the President Barack Hussein Obama, God has spared us for the moment. Instead God has sent a dire warning and encouraged We the People to rise up, in His name, to restore His kingdom.
Had Mitt Romney been elected president, many among the flock would have been lulled asleep and deluded into thinking that a Moses had appeared to deliver us out of the Egyptian-like bondage we find ourselves in – thanks to our “Mullah in Chief” and his growing voter hoards of socialists, communists, anti-Semites, anti-Christians, atheists, radical gays and lesbians, feminists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, anti-Anglo whites and others who last Tuesday cemented his destructive hold on the White House and our country.
This is why we need to use peaceful and powerful means to fight against the evils of our corrupt government. One of these avenues is the Citizens Grand Jury, which I, as a Citizens Prosecutor, have empaneled in Ocala, Fla. On Oct, 29, 2012, the Citizens Grand Jury, after having evidence presented to it, voted unanimously on a true bill to indict President Obama and Vice President Biden on charges of treason for their having intentionally leaked classified national security information to boost their political fortunes in the Nov. 6 elections. This month, I will be returning to Ocala to seek the indictment of Obama for his having defrauded the American people with regard to his eligibility to be president. And, after that the Citizens Grand Jury will set its sights on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan for Roberts having violated his oath of office in rendering a willfully illegal ruling in the case upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare and not disqualifying Kagan, given her conflict of interest. Kagan will be indicted for violating her oath of office and refusing to recuse herself from the case as required by the Judicial Canons of Ethics.
So why does it feel as if something important has changed as a result of the recent presidential election? Why is there a sense of significant and lasting change for the worse in the political wind due to the re-election of Barack Obama?
The reason is that the re-election of Obama – combined with the manner in which it occurred – has finally extinguished the last embers of hope in the hearts of millions of true Americans. Even many of those who refused to vote for Romney on principle because of his proven liberal track record nevertheless saw him as operating within the limits of traditional American political ideology. They might have seen him as a potentially disastrous president, and been skeptical that he would even begin to address the cataclysmic problems facing the nation, but they saw him as someone who was genuinely concerned about the fate of the United States and the American population within it.
Americans don’t despair now because the president is a Democrat or because blacks disproportionately supported him. That was equally true when Clinton ran for office. The reason they are reeling with shock and horror is that they have finally come to understand that the melting pot is a myth, that the grand story of immigration they swallowed as children is a monstrous falsehood, and that there are now two very different nations living within the boundaries of what they had previously believed was a single country.
The uncomfortable fact of the matter is that post-1965 immigrants are not, and never will be, Americans in the constitutional or revolutionary sense. It doesn’t matter if they are Catholic mestizos, Christian Asians or Muslim Arabs. It is not a matter of religion or race, but rather of centuries-old cultural traditions in which a dominant central government is considered a basic fact of life and a potential resource to be exploited, not a dangerous servant best viewed with suspicion and kept under constant restraint. This can be seen in the 2012 exit polls: Asians voted 73 percent for Obama’s big government message, Hispanics 71 percent, Muslims 85 percent and blacks 96 percent.
The 2012 presidential election was not significant because it signaled the end of America. That was already readily apparent eight years ago. But it was significant because it made it clear to everyone how, when and why constitutional America met its end.
Who Owns Responsibility For Brent Bozell? Topic: Media Research Center
From a Nov. 9 NewsBusters post on Brent Bozell's weekly appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show:
Chris Matthews's disgusting pronouncement that he was glad Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey because it aided the president's reelection bid is just the latest in a string of mean-spirited, hateful, partisan rhetoric from the Hardball host, and Comcast/NBC has to own up to their responsibility for it, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell told Sean Hannity on the November 8 Hannity.
"You own this guy, and you own responsibility for the things he's saying," Bozell insisted of the cable giant Comcast. "Look,, this guy is out of control. What more disgusting things can he say that he has to apologize for?"
"I don't care, Sean, that he apologized," Bozell noted, adding that Matthews, although always a liberal, has become hateful and spiteful in the past ten years.
So Brent Bozell is going to complain about others spewing "mean-spirited, hateful, partisan rhetoric"?
The same guy who oversees a group of employees who saw nothing wrong with Rush Limbaugh's three days of misogyny against Sandra Fluke?
This is the guy who wants to become the arbiter of civility in politics?
Who owns responsibility for Bozell? Doesn't the Media Research Center have a board of directors that will hold him accountable for his increasingly unhinged public behavior (which, one might presume, is reflective of his private behavior)? Doesn't Hannity care that it was on his air that Bozell called Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead?"
WND's Ellis Washington Goes Godwin -- Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington goes Godwin on President Obama for the second time in as many weeks, using his Nov. 9 WorldNetDaily column to obsess over the meaning of the "Arbeit Macht Frei" phrase and then inserting Obama into it:
Astonishingly, the Germans got millions of intelligent people to willingly enter concentration camps under the grotesque, perverse, genocidal lie Arbeit Macht Frei.
On a less extreme level than Nazi tyranny and genocide, I wonder … has America sown the wind by re-electing Barack Obama? If so, then we should collectively get ready to reap the whirlwind in a new age of socialist hell we have brought upon ourselves.
So re-electing Obama is like putting people in concentration camps? Really?
But Washington wasn't done pouting over Obama's re-election:
Like most conservatives and Republicans, the results of Tuesday’s election has left me numb and depressed, yet I will soldier on. I can’t believe that otherwise intelligent, rational people would knowingly elect a Marxist, socialist Muslim-sympathizer who has purposely ruined America, promised to wreak even more “revenge” upon this country in his second term – and 53 percent of those exit polled blamed George W. Bush for Obama’s existential recession. Incredible!
Arbeit Macht Frei.
Under the Democratic Socialist Party, this means whatever lies they tell you are the truth, and whatever truth Christians, conservatives and Republicans tell you are lies.
Arbeit Macht Frei achieved for black America what 250 years of slavery could not do: all but destroy the black family. My people voted 96 percent for Obama in 2008 and 93 percent for Obama in 2012 and danced in the streets with such joy and passion on election night that the Democratic Party plantation slave chains around their necks, wrists and ankles drowned out the victory music at Obama’s acceptance speech in Chicagoland.
And Washington still wonders why, after spewing such hate, no reputable university will hire him for a tenure-track job.
CNS Thinks Telling The Truth Is A Capitulation Topic: CNSNews.com
How biased is CNSNews.com? Terry Jeffrey's news service believes that telling the truth is a capituation.
In an ABC interview, House Republican Speaker John Boehner said, " It’s pretty clear that the president was re-elected. Obamacare is the law of the land." The Nov. 9 CNS article by Matt Coveron the interview carries thet headline "Boehner Capitulates: ‘Obamacare is the Law of the Land’."
But Boehner is stating an indisputable fact. That's simply the truth, not a capituation. That CNS apparently can't tell the difference between the two tells you a lot about Jeffrey and Co.
Ilana Mercer Doesn't Want The Right to Vote Topic: WorldNetDaily
In the midst of her Nov. 8 WorldNetDaily column complaining about President Obama's re-election, Ilana Mercer writes:
As always, women voted with their wombs, although married sisters were less wild for big daddy O. (Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to “give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.”)
Usually, it's men like Vox Day who don't think women should vote. This is the first time we've encountered a female requesting that the right to vote be taken away from her.
Mercer goes on to complain that "For years, those of us who’ve warned about demographics have been dubbed racists." Perhaps that's because people like her write things like this:
The only voters who could be swayed by the promise of the free market are the Democratic Party’s Asian supporters, since they enjoy higher incomes and stabler families than the party’s Hispanic and black devotees.
The now-waning West became great not because it outbred the rest of the world. The West was once great because of its human capital – innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of superior ideas and the willingness to defend such a civilization, not because it was more populated than the rest of the world.
America doesn’t need more people; it needs better people.
Now That Election's Over, Newsmax's Ruddy Can Criticize Romney Again Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax's main article on President Obama's re-election seemed to sum up the overall mood at the website: "Obama Hands Romney Bitter Defeat." It seems that author David Patten is projecting a bit.
Newsmax took a couple stabs at trying to downplay the significance of Obama's win -- one article declared, "Networks Victory-for-Obama Reports Echo the 2000 Bush-Gore Debacle." Actually, not so much.
Another article tried to link declines in the stock market to Obama's re-election.
In the end, though, even Newsmax couldn't deny reality, and CEO Christopher Ruddy -- who had jumped on Ronald Kessler's Romney-fluffing train a few weeks prior to the election -- penned a Nov. 7 column seeking to lay blame for Mitt Romney's defeat.
After noting that "Perhaps the easy explanation is that two hurricanes and two betrayals by Chris Christie killed Mitt Romney's chances" -- and labeling Christie as "Iago" -- Ruddy lays out a point-by-point explanation of "why our pilot Mitt Romney and his plan were so flawed."
That gets Ruddy back to where he was several weeks before the election, prior to his endorsement of Romney, when he was praising Obama's foreign policy and criticizing the way Romney's campaign was being run.
Joel Richardson's 'Christian Response' To Obama's Re-Election: Hate Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joel Richardson's Nov. 8 WorldNetDaily column is headlined "A Christian response to Obama victory," but it quickly degenerates into to some very un-Christian hate-spewing and name-calling:
In the afterglow of Obama’s victory, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ayatollah Khamenei, Vladimir Putin and Chris Matthews, as well as millions of pot-heads, sodomites, pro-aborts and all common moochers, are sharing a collective thrill. The American people by a clear majority have rejected fiscal responsibility, energy independence, national security, border security, traditional family values, and worst of all, standing with the most defenseless and innocent among us. Barack Obama’s re-election is a complete political, economic, moral, social and spiritual catastrophe.
Is such hate a "Christian response" as Richardson would have us believe? Unlikely, except in the eyes of the other obsessively anti-Obama self-proclaimed Christians at WND.
Richardson goes on to encourage his readers to take the long view and "shift our eyes to the heavenly city, to the country that God is preparing for us," where "the judgment of the many unrighteous, self-serving and corrupt politicians throughout the whole earth" awaits:
For now, my country is governed by a man many of us feel is a truly unrighteous individual, a race-baiter, a divider, a liar, a destroyer. And while I would not suppose to truly know anyone’s heart, I do take great comfort in the fact that there is one who knows the hearts of all people and who has promised a day of justice for all of the earth. So while I will continue to stand and fight for this great nation, even believing that there is yet hope for repentance, revival and restoration, as I watch this beautiful country slip away and devolve into something almost unrecognizable, I take great comfort in knowing that a heavenly country lies ahead. I have been promised a kingdom, and it is on this kingdom the eyes of my heart are fixed. And even more than the coming kingdom, my eyes of hope are fixed entirely on the coming King. And for this reason, the present man in office will never have control over my emotions and will do nothing to steal my joy.
If Obama didn't control Richardson's emotions, why did he spend an entire column spewing Obama-hate?
In 2007, when The New York Times granted MoveOn.org a special discount it wasn't entitled to so they could slam David Petraeus in a full-page ad as "General Betray Us," NPR reported on the ad, but never on the Times cut-rate controversy.
But NPR is sometimes very sensitive about the "independence" of media outlets -- when it seems compromised by Republicans. On Tuesday's All Things Considered, they granted air time to KUOW reporter Sara Lerner in Washington state to discuss how the Seattle Times outrageously used their own free ad space for an favoring the Republican running for governor, and how 100 of the paper's journalists were protesting[.]
This is a faulty comparison -- the two situations are nothing alike.
The Washington Post reported that there was no "special discount" to MoveOn for the 2007 ad; the Times mistakenly charged MoveOn a lower "standby" rate, $65,000, instead of the standard rate of $142,000. MoveOn said it had no reason to believe it was paying "anything other than the normal and usual charge" and would pay the difference.
Still, that's $65,000 (or $142,000) more than was paid to the Seattle Times for the full-page ads by the Republican gubernatorial candidate and a second ad opposing a same-sex marriage referendum. Graham provides no evidence that either the candidate or anti-marriage-equality forces have offered to reimburse the paper for these ads.
Only an right-wing anti-media obsessive like Graham could fail to see the difference between the two.