Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FOX News labels "pro-life" Sarah Palin as "Pro-choice," repeatedly

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:21 PM
Original message
FOX News labels "pro-life" Sarah Palin as "Pro-choice," repeatedly
One of the appeals of Sarah Palin to the far-right base John McCain is trying to motivate is her unequivocal opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape and/or incest. But to try to coax disappointed Hillary-voters into settling for another woman - any woman, as if we're all interchangeable s'long as we've got the parts - FOX chyrons erroneously labelled Palin "pro-choice."

Palin is identified as pro-life at Feminists for Life, an organization she only joined in 2006, by Catholic News Service, Christian Broadcasting Network, and BeliefNet, plus thousands of secular outlets. Are they all misstating her position (which would be hu-u-u-uge) or is it FOX misleading viewers again?

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/08/31/fox_news_labels_prolife_sarah_palin_as_prochoice_repeatedly.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. So get lots of screen shots and send them to conservative friends and family
Tell them, "See how McCain is betraying the Republican base? He has chosen a pro-choice running mate! She must be a liberal feminist, and probably a witch as well. You sure you want to vote in November?"

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Already started.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Disbelief

Ted Stevens-D
Larry Craig-D

Now this.

Faux News is a sham organization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RTFirefly Donating Member (235 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Ted Stevens too?
I remember the Larry Craig D, but I must've missed the Stevens D. Was this just recently when he was indicted, or back when he was embarrassing himself with tubes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yes, to all of your questions
Edited on Sun Aug-31-08 10:35 PM by TechBear_Seattle
I've heard that Stevens was reported as a Democrat several times, and not just after the federal investigations began. Something about how embarassing it was for a hard-core Republican to be scamming millions of dollars for a bridge to nowhere....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yes I remember Stevens

It wasn't a few months back. I saw it on Stewart I think or maybe that Liberal media watchdog group.

I DO KNOW there were two guys called Dems by Faux
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Foley was listed as a D as well
Edited on Sun Aug-31-08 10:50 PM by GreenPartyVoter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Faux News has been a shameless RW propaganda tool for years.
This is just more proof. They need to be shut down or put out of business or something for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. There was another one recently, too, but I can't remember who. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerousRhythm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. I noticed this as well.
Someone has to call them out on this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. CNN Radio did the SAME thing the other night - I posted about it
and others had heard it as well.

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Let them keep calling her "pro-choice" and
watch them lose their evangelical base! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nytemare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Exactly
It may not be such a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. DELIBERATE lie intended to appeal to Moderates. Accidentally on purpose or Purposefully accidental.
I am sooooooooo sick of plausible deniability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DogPoundPup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Deliberate deception
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Deliberate deception -- Christians already know what she is, but outsiders get tricked by FOX
It's called a "win/win" dirty trick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. That should help turn off the base.
Way to go FOX!

No one but the base watches FOX anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. IT WONT

Her base already knows her position on choice. The moderates and indies dont maybe know it...this could peel off some of them voters if they dont brush up on her radical viewpoints.

Faux does this shit for a reason...they aren't just slipping up, they are actively promoting political propaganda and this is an example. There isn't one anti choice zealot who will vote any way other than the way Dobson tells them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. exactly -- it won't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DogPoundPup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. "Feminism is all about having choices"
Many people are unfamiliar with Feminists for Life and wonder what the choice of Sarah Palin, who is against abortion rights, signals to the electorate.

Well, let me tell you something about Feminists for Life. In 2003, I decided to investigate this group and its energetic leader, Serrin Foster. What did it mean, I wondered, to be a feminist and actively fight against the right to choose when or whether to have a child?

So I went to a church in sprawling, suburban, wealthy Danville, California to hear Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life, speak on "The Feminist Case Against Abortion" to a huge crowd of mainly high-school students.

Founded in 1972, one year before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the historic Roe vs. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the United States, Feminists for Life now focuses exclusively on practical alternatives to abortion for college-age women.

No woman, argues Foster, should ever have to choose between having a child and a career. "Abortion is a reflection that society has failed women," she tells high school and college students as she tours the country.

"Women deserve better choices," she says and points to practical alternatives and resources available to a young woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. She can choose single parenthood and use food stamps or temporary assistance to needy families. She can choose adoption. Or, college-age women can pressure school campuses to offer child care and family housing so that they never, ever, have to choose between a pregnancy and an education.

Feminism is all about having choices, Foster told me, after her talk. I couldn't agree more. Young women, she says, should have the right to bear a child and have access to high-quality, affordable child care. Again, I heartily agreed.

But Foster is cleverly disingenuous. When I asked what she does to promote child care, her answers were vague and evasive. When I read the organization's brochures aimed at campus physicians and psychologists, I found nothing about campaigning for child care. The real goal is to convince professionals to persuade young women to "choose" to bear a baby.

Despite its protestations, Feminists for Life is not really about choice. You can see this on its Web site, where the slogan "refuse to choose" appeared repeatedly. Nor does the organization challenge the real difficulties working mothers face. Instead, it cleverly appropriates the words "feminist" and "choice" to convince young women that abortion is always an unacceptable choice.

Part of the problem is that Foster either does not know her history or purposefully distorts the past. She spoke that night as though she had invented the idea of child care and describes pioneer feminists of the 1960s and 1970s as selfish, diabolical creatures who never wanted women to have the choice to bear a child.

But she's wrong. The three demands made at the first national march in New York City in 1970 included child care, equal pay for equal work and the legal right to "choose" an abortion. Many feminists, moreover, spent years trying to persuade the institutions where they worked that real equality for women required family-friendly policies, including child care.

Foster also accused Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America of supporting abortion in order to stay in business. But I had to wonder about her own financial goals when I saw, in the organization's magazine, that I could buy a "stunning new logo pin" in either sterling silver or 24-carat gold for $75.

In the end, I decided that Feminists for Life is neither about feminism nor about choice. It is a cunning attempt to convince young women that choice means giving up the right to "choose."

Sarah Palin is the inexperienced woman Sen. John McCain has chosen as his running mate, hoping that she will attract the vital female vote.. It's the worst kind of affirmative action, choosing a person he barely knows, who is completely unprepared to assume any national office. It's like nominating Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. It's all about ideology and not about competence.

To put it bluntly, Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Nor does she have the vision and brilliance of Barack Obama. This is an incredible insult to most American women. Just how stupid does he think we are?
http://www.alternet.org/election08/96991/sarah_palin_and_feminists_for_life/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. They don't know which group to pander to.
This is fantastic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
19. Screw the errors. That's a loophole to get out of legal action
I say use "ignorance of the law'. Where they can't claim it was in error. This is always going be BS. CNN does the same thing. These are just thoughts and but it looks like a loophole I'd try to treat first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. Well, if you think about it,
the only ones that really believe anything Fox says are all pro-life. So how does that help their side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC