Kira Davis' Open Letter to MSNBC on Real Racism

Read Kira Davis' Open Letter to MSBNC on Real Racism on her site

Shame on MSNBC!!

I was about to claim that I have never used MSNBC as a source on this blog. But I wanted to make sure, therefore, I utilized incredibly simple research methods of typing "MSNBC" into the top left search box.
As it turns out those combinations of letters have been used 7 times on this site. Four of those times it was to draw attention to anti-Romney pieces they ran. Pieces that showed so much bias that the news network itself became the news story, and not Mitt Romney.
My point is that it is not hard to be honest and truthful. Someone needs to explain that to MSNBC!
After seeing the following clip that is so doctored and biased to the point of being fiction, I don't know how anyone can ever trust MSNBC again. It gives a bad name to all of journalism, and digs a hole so deep, they will never climb out. What could they possibly say to justify this editing?

Sign the Petition Against Lawrence O'Donnell

On April 3rd 2012, Lawrence O’Donnell crossed the line. In a piece supposedly about difficulties Mitt Romney will face in a general election, he spewed outright lies about the LDS Church, and dove head first into slander.
As one of the 14 million people slandered and offended by his bigotry, I encourage you to sign the petition to MSNBC for remedial action against O'Donnell. The fact that this was even allowed to be said, so completely full of lies, is shameful!

SAY NO TO THE JOURNALISTIC BIGOTRY OF MSNBC'S LAWRENCE O'DONNELL (PETITION)

I read the news so you don't have to

Have you checked out the "Match-O-Matic" from ABC and Yahoo News yet? This fun little interactive game has you answer a series of questions to see which candidate (6 major GOP + Obama) you best match up with. Even knowing the candidate's platforms as well as I do, and trying to skew the results to get a certain one, I was very surprised at my result. I got the candidate I wanted (Mitt Romney) for my first choice, but the second place was Huntsman, and the third place was Obama. Obama?? I took it a second time, again skewing my answers to try and get Bachmann, and it gave me Rick Perry. Go figure. It is a fun game, I'm just not sure that it is accurate.
CNN has an interesting piece about how top Iowa faith leaders have backed Rick Santorum, but wish they didn't have to choose between so many pro-life candidates. I find this particularly odd that they would back the losing candidate, while saying they wish they didn't have to choose. Kudos for saying they wish some of the candidates would drop out. I agree. But it is Santorum who is taking away support from bigger candidates! One-issue candidates annoy me. Good for them for bringing attention to their one issue. But they need to think about the party, or overall conservative movement, as a whole, when it comes down to voting time. Otherwise, they are doing more harm than good, pulling support away from a stronger, bigger, candidate with similar views.
Meanwhile MSNBC is running a big whiny piece about Newt Gingrich. The Newt isn't so happy that his competition is running negative ads about him. He's complaining it is causing his drop in the polls. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe you just had an unexpected rise in the polls on name recognition only, then you opened your mouth, people heard what you had to say, and went running? You can't blame your competition for reminding people about who you are!
As for why his campaign is struggling to get his name on the ballot in Virginia (see, I'm not the only one saying that!), and is unorganized in Iowa, he says, “We are still putting our campaign together. It is wild. It is amazing. Some candidates have been running for five or six years and raised millions and millions of dollars. They're better organized than I am.”
You would think a man who has been in politics for as many years as he has would have a lot of connections with campaign managers. Oh wait, he did. And they all quit working for him over the summer!
Last, but not least, the AP is running a story that some folks in Iowa are worried that the voting results might be hacked.

"It's very clear the data consolidation and data gathering from the caucuses, which determines the headlines the next morning, who might withdraw or resign from the process, all of that is fragile," said Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa who has consulted for both political parties.

"If I were one of these `hacktivists' who had no scruples, I would be really strongly tempted to see if I could get into the computer and see if I could make `SpongeBob SquarePants' win."

While I wouldn't put it past some rabid supporters to do that (coughpaulitescough), all I can really say is anyone who believes that must not have access to C-SPAN, where you can sit and watch the different caucuses "vote" live on TV. It is one of the most boring spectacles you can watch live, but there is no question who they caucus for. Hacking the computers would be pointless when we can watch it all live.