Has it come to this? Doctored pictures on the world wide web’s #1 news website in order to try and defeat and/or smear John Kerry?
Drudge has been running this uncredited photo since last night on his website a with the headline “KERRY ON ORANGE ALERT: SKIN TRANSITION ON EVE OF DEBATE”…
Drudge doesn’t supply the source for the original photo and we he’s run lifted and doctored photos before, as recently as during the Democratic Convention. However, an examination of other news photos from the same event on September 27th in Spring Green, WI, clearly shows Drudge’s photo to be either phony or doctored.
This one is from Reuters…
Note the bald man to the right of Kerry is the same many on the left of Kerry in the doctored Drudge photo.
And this one also from Reuters…
And this one from AP where though Kerry looks a bit more tan, it’s nothing like the one that Drudge is running…
Note the woman in red behind Kerry in both this and the doctored Drudge photo.
And just for good measure — what a world — here’s an AP photo of Bush from September 24 — undoctored — but appearing rather orange himself…
I can’t believe, frankly, with thousands dead, dying, injured, held captive and beheaded in Iraq and the largest budget deficit in the history of mankind in this country that we’re wasting our time with this kind of bullshit. Such is the case of the world, I guess, when running against the “Anything to Win” man in the White House and his cronies in the Rightwing Smear Media.
(Special thanks to John Aravosis of the excellent AMERICABlog for posting this item for me over there while we were knocked out over here today!)
Its good to be back. 🙂 🙂 🙂
And you know what? Kerry must be doing something right if they’ve resorted to making fun of the color of his skin.
I see this as a VERY good sign.
Republicans have spent the last 40 years attacking people based on the color of their skin.
jaime,
Precisely the last 40 years. It was the 1964 civil rights legislation that began the mass exodus from the democrats by many of the right wingers we know. Strom, Trent, and so forth.
Of course, by referring to Kerry’s skin tones they are attempting to detract from that huge streak of yellah going down Bush’s back.
Jaime, very true. Good call.
Republicans help past the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would have not passed without Republicans. Joe Kennedy was against it. More Republicans voted for it than against it. More Democrats vote against it than Repubicans.
It’s too bad that lies like these are excepted as fact and that black people believe them.
The truth below:
The real hero in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was U.S. Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, a Republican, from Pekin, Illinois. He shepherded that bill through the Senate’s Southern Democrat gauntlet, a filibuster led by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and got 27 Republicans to vote for it (82%) with only 6 against!! On the Democrat side, 46 were for (only 69%); but 21 Democrats voted against it, including Al Gore’s father.
I forget are Orange people stupid or lazy??
Paul,
Your ignorance about the issue is quite interesting. You do know, don’t you, that the republicanparty placed a plank in their 1964 platform SPECIFICALLY to oppose the 1964 civil rights legislation. It was that very act that prompted strom and the other segregationists to begin to join the republicans. This is not to say that some republicans were not good on issues of race but that as a party they decided that attracting Strom Thurmond and the like was more important than social justice.
Look at the vote!
Its as simple as this Paul:
which political party opposed the civil rights legislation in its platform? Speaking of the vote, those who voted against the Act like THEN democrat Thurmond later became REPUBLICANS. Why? Because the party had changed. Please stop trying to pretend that the modern republican party, which was constructed as a result of the 1964 civil rights act, is something other than the party of the neoconfederacy.
Hi to Brad and the others that know me.
First off, the tint of Kerry’s skin doesn’t matter. Its amusing, but says nothing as to how he would be as a leader – thats a matter of opinion which we all have a slightly different view on. As for the photo being doctored or fake, it just looks like the photograph was taken in a much higher contrast. Clearly the two photos are night and day. Making a joke about Kerry’s skin color is no different than Kerry joking that Edwards and himself have better hair. I wouldn’t look to far into it.
Also, believe it or not, Republicans don’t necessarily discriminate based on skin color. Both sides have had some off the cuff remarks. Strom Thurmond may have joined the Republicans, but Robert Byrd was part of the KKK. Just to note: I don’t support either of their actions, I’m just stating a point.
To show some things that the Democrat side has done, I’ll point to two things:
1. Missouri Democratic Party, 2004 – The billboard ad with an African American, with the words "Missouri Republicans have a plan, you’re not included"
2. 2000 Election – Something to the extent of "If you vote Republican, another black church will burn down"
In closing, I don’t feel either party is racist. Certain people in each are shown to have racist tendencies.
John – why are you so hateful? Agree to disagree instead of instant "attack mode" 🙂
Brad – Glad you got the site back up. I visit from time to time, but not big on commenting anywhere.
Troll – Glad to have ya by. In regards to this thought: "Making a joke about Kerry’s skin color is no different than Kerry joking that Edwards and himself have better hair."
Were it a joke (like the one on The Daily Show the night before last) I wouldn’t have a problem. But the fact that that photo has been on the #1 site on the net, Drudge’s front page for 3 days now, and in fact Drudge is the assignment editor for not just the Rightwing Extreme Media (Rush, Sean, etc.) but also the rest of the Lamestream Media, means that this election will be — once again — about non-issues at a very serious time in our country.
The *issues* should be what matters here (for or against Kerry or Bush) at a time when thousands are being killed due to those issues.
And do you have any doubt what Karl Rove would rather have discussed today? Kerry’s tan or Bush’s foreign policies?
(For the record, though I think it’s an amusing thought/thread, I don’t believe that any of this stuff is about race. But it is an amusing idea to ponder.)
Troll,
Screw you.
No, just kidding. Its not an issue of attacking. i grew up in the South. i know about this confederate ideology and have faught against it my whole life. this is an issue so close to my heart i cannot let an apologist for the neoconfederates get by with such bull.
Reagan changed the south from Democrats to Republican, with the help of a terrible Democrat president named Jimmy Carter. Democrats in the south still tend to be more conservative than their yankee counterparts. Thanks Troll! You are correct!
Paul,
You really need a decent history book. It was Nixon who began the migration of the Southern segregationists to the republithug party. This was the goal of the "southern strategery" in the 1968 and 72 elections. True Reagan DID pander to those racist tendencies by speaking at known and important racist venues such as philadelphia mississippi and so forth. It is also true that Byrd stayed a democrats, as troll pointed out, but Byrd openly denounced his racist past. Same thing cant be said for the democrats who becamew republicans in the late 60s and early 70s: Thurmond, Lott, Helms, and so forth.
Didn’t I see a "headline" on Yahoo! news about the president making fun of Kerry’s tan? I’ll look for it.
Nope, not the president but MRS. Cheney.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl...kerry_cheney_2
Yes, I saw the moment, Lori. It was the Cheney’s doing one of their "Town Hall" things (where they can screen out all but the "Loyal").
Dick said something about the men in the room in the Orange shirts, and darn it all, Lynne just couldn’t help but be reminded of Kerry’s tan and just had to say it since Dick just couldn’t bring himself to do so.
Those are just horrible people. They shall not be missed.
And I’m quite certain TODAY that they’re sorry that they decided ridiculing the face of the opposition was perfectly allowable.
OK… Why does it matter what one believes? I mean.. You can’t change what others think or do. All you can do is make comments to what you think is right and let the people choose for themselves.. AND hope they make the right choices.. I’m from the South like John.. But I think that the Civil War was bull. I mean it happened.. but the reasons the South done what we did was because that’s how we were bought up, raised, and what we believed in.. So who are you to say that’s wrong. I mean honestly…. The North fought for what they thought was right and just happened to win the war because of better technology and strengths as a union.. The South was a bunch of country hicks like it still is to this day some are.. I’d rather live down here my whole life as country and true.. then in the North stone cold and have hate running threw my veins…………..