Fox News Airs Hour Long Commercial For Anti-Obama Film On Hannity

Fox News has long served as the public relations arm of the Republican Party. Their purpose, as always, is to promote the GOP and the conservative agenda throughout their broadcast day. In pursuit of that mission they regularly feature Republican guests in the friendliest of environments. And whenever there is a conservative cause to promote (i.e. Tea Party, Palin movie, right-wing blog, anti-left messaging, etc.), Fox steps up to take the leading role.

Consistent with this mission, Friday night’s episode of Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News was a blatant infomercial promoting an anti-Obama movie by the people who brought us Citizens United. The crocumentary “The Hope and the Change” consumed the entire hour of Hannity’s program.

Sean Hannity - Hope and Change

The primetime program featured lengthy clips from the film as well as interviews with the film’s creators, David Bossie and Steve Bannon. Bossie is the head of Citizens United, the organization that prompted the abhorrent Supreme Court decision that made it possible for individuals and corporations to donate unlimited sums of cash to political candidates and causes. Bannon is the director of the monumental flop, “Sarah Palin: Undefeated,” a movie that managed to fail miserably despite millions of dollars in free publicity courtesy of Fox News. Bannon went on to take the reins of Breitbart News after the sudden death of Andrew Breitbart, and he somehow succeeded in making the site even more idiotic.

Hannity opened the infomercial with the stark declaration that…

“I don’t say this lightly, but I mean every word of this. This is the most powerful documentary I’ve ever seen in my life.”

That’s quite a testimonial. Hannity didn’t reveal what other documentaries he’s seen, but it’s fair to guess that his second favorite would be “Triumph of the Will,” Hitler’s propaganda film directed by Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl. Now that may seem like an unfair attempt to associate Hannity and the anti-Obama film with the Third Reich, but the film actually incorporates portions of Riefenstahl’s score, and Bossie openly admits to intentionally including the music for effect. When asked about his choice of music Bossie confessed that “There are no accidents in this film.” So the Hitler reference was deliberate on the part of the filmmakers.

Along with Bossie and Bannon, a key figure in the film’s production was Pat Caddell, the former democratic pollster who has become a fixture on Fox News whenever they need someone they can falsely identify as a Democrat who will mercilessly, and dishonestly, savage his former colleagues. Caddell’s role was to assemble a group of disenchanted Obama supporters who could be manipulated to bash the President’s reelection bid.

In fact, the whole focus of the film’s message was that there are some folks who voted for Obama in 2008 who don’t plan to vote for him again. That isn’t exactly an earth shattering revelation. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum change their minds. But the people featured in this film were particularly daft. They expressed their disappointment in the President because he didn’t fulfill their expectations of miraculous healings and the saving of souls. In their own words they seemed to believe that Obama could achieve the impossible, and when he didn’t they abandoned him. That is probably a tiny demographic in America and they are not likely to have a noticeable impact on the election.

By comparison, the Obama campaign just released a video of former Republicans who will be supporting the President in November. Their stories are far more representative of typical moderates who are surprised and appalled by the extremist leanings of the modern Republican Party.

Republicans just adopted a platform for the party’s convention that illustrates how far from the mainstream they have drifted. It includes an anti-abortion plank with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother; an immigration plank that calls for “self-deportation;” a plank advocating a return to the gold standard; a provision denying women a role in combat; opposition to same-sex marriage; and support for turning Medicare into a voucher program that will cost seniors thousands of dollars more.

Those are real issues that will drive the voting decisions of rational moderates. The glassy-eyed sycophants plucked out of obscurity by the anti-Obama film crew will have zero effect on clear-thinking voters as they evaluate the agendas put forward by Obama and Romney. What may have an effect, however, are the millions of dollars the filmmakers have promised to spend on advertising their crocumentary. They can finance their campaign with funds acquired from the sort of Super PACs that their Supreme Court decision enabled.

What’s disturbing about this is that they freely admit that their purpose is not so much to promote the film, but to let their ads serve as disguised political messages aimed at disparaging the President and affecting the outcome of the election. The reason that they chose this month to release the film was so their advertising would appear during the campaign season and they could pretend that it was merely marketing for the movie. And I repeat, this is not a conspiracy theory, it is something they specifically admit to and boast about.

Of course, the filmmakers always have Fox News to fuel their hype. The GOP network is more than happy to donate as much time as necessary to promote the movie, just as they have done for prior projects. The Hannity show was just the beginning. The film will officially debut at the Republican National Convention Etch-a-Sketch next week, and there will surely be more segments devoted to the film on Fox News. And while they will help to boost the success of this commercial, for-profit hit piece, it is highly unlikely that Fox will give much time (if any) to the political communication above from the Obama campaign. That would, after all, be too much like actually reporting the news which, as we know, Fox doesn’t do.

Mexican Anchor Baby Mitt Romney: No One’s Ever Asked To See My Birth Certificate

In keeping with his promise to change the tone of the campaign, Mitt Romney just dove head first into birtherism in a speech to supporters in Michigan:

“Now I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital. I was born in Harper Hospital. No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”

First of all, I need to point out that Romney is factually wrong. I have asked to see his birth certificate and he has yet to comply. There have also been numerous others who have called on Romney to produce the document. He did release a “certificate of live birth” last May that is obviously a fake. We know that it’s a fake because when President Obama released a similar document the birthers uniformly denounced as an outright fraud.

Mitt Romney's Fake Birth Certificate

By asserting that nobody has asked to see his birth certificate, Romney is illustrating the undisguised racism that has fueled the birther movement. Of course no one asked a wealthy white man to prove his citizenship. Why would they? That’s only a question for foreign looking people who differ from the majority.

In the past week Romney has been complaining that much of the campaign has been about trivial matters that are distractions from issues like the economy and jobs that Romney says he wants to focus on. He whined about having to respond to questions about his tax returns, abortion, and Medicare. So apparently he is taking the initiative to raise the tenor of the campaign by reminding people that President Obama has been accused of being a Kenyan agent sent to deliver America into the hands of godless Muslims and socialists. That is the sort of substantive subject that Romney thinks the nation should be talking about.

Perhaps Romney is just offering a preview of the Republican National Convention Etch-a-Sketch that begins next week and will feature speeches by notorious birthers Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The theme of the GOP event is “We Built That,” a dishonest, out-of-context reference to remarks Obama made in praise of the American system that has helped so many people to prosper. It is unlikely, however, that Romney will acknowledge that the Tampa Bay Forum where the GOP convention will be held, was built by mostly government funding.

GOP Convention

Judging by Romney’s latest attempt at humor, next week should be a barrel of laughs.

Mitt Romney Blasts Businesses For Using Off-Shore Tax Havens

In a monumental display of [Pick One:] 1) Irony; 2) Hypocrisy; 3) Arrogance; 4) All of the Above; Mitt Romney unloaded two barrels of hollow-point criticism at businesses who use foreign tax shelters to shield their income from U.S. taxes.

Romney: “We’ve got to make it easier for small businesses. Big business is doing fine in many places – they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed.”

Swiss Mitt RomneyThat’s the same Mitt Romney who fails to acknowledge how he has benefited from similar financial shenanigans. The same Romney who refuses to release his tax returns. The same Romney who steadfastly defends the tax manipulations he engaged in, at least when he will admit to them.

Romney was speaking to a private group of supporters at a fundraiser in Minnesota yesterday. He seemingly is unaware of the hypocrisy in his remarks, as well as the tone-deaf insensitivity to the majority of Americans who cannot take advantage of the loopholes that people like Romney have created for themselves. And while he lambastes big businesses for exploiting the tax code and foreign stash accounts, he has yet to propose any reforms that would address the matter.

Also notable in his remarks is the statement that “big business is doing fine.” When President Obama made a similar remark about the private sector, Romney and his surrogates plucked it of its original context and misrepresented the President as having said that the economy overall is fine. How would Romney respond if Democrats were to do the same thing with this comment? And Democrats would not even have to obscure the context because Romney actually did say this without qualification.

If big business is doing so well, then why aren’t they hiring? Romney’s assessment is a direct contradiction of his previous analysis of the economy. He has been adamant that Obama’s stewardship of the economy has failed and that a course correction would produce more prosperity and jobs. But now, before a freindly audience of wealthy donors he hails the success of businesses but fails to explain why the prosperity and jobs have not followed.

In these remarks Romney has demonstrated that he is a poor judge of economic affairs and astonishingly lacking in self-awareness as he castigates others for exploiting off-shore tax shelters that he uses himself. No wonder he so obstinately refuses to level with the American people about his tax returns. And next week he will enter the GOP convention with the theme “We Built That,” but will decline to acknowledge that the facility hosting the event was built with a majority (62%) of government funds.

Pundit Ignoramus: Dick Morris Says Todd Akin Story Is A Big Plus For Romney

The prostitute toe-sucking Fox News contributor, Dick Morris, has once again put his idiot brethren to shame by publicly making remarks that are so over-the-top stupid that it boggles the mind. Internationally known as the “World’s Worst Pundit,” Morris spoke yesterday with Bill O’Reilly guest host Laura Ingraham to discuss the Todd Akin affair. Morris said

Morris: “I think that story is a big plus for Romney right now. Because the story is not that some kooky Republican congressman running for the senate said something stupid. That was the first story. Now the story is that the responsible leaders of the Republican Party, Romney and McConnell and Ryan and all of them are piling on Akin’s withdraw and he won’t. And that really sends a message to pro-choice women that they don’t need to be afraid of Mitt Romney, that they don’t have to vote for Obama because of that.”

Dick Morris

The stupid is so thick it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with Morris’ contention that the story is not about “some kooky Republican.” Yes it is. Akin’s defiant insistence on staying in the race insures that he will continue to be a lightening rod for controversy. However, the story is not just about him. It is also about the rest of the Republican Party who share his views. That includes Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who have both endorsed legislation and constitutional amendments that would ban abortion for any reason, including rape, incest, and the health of the mother. The Republican Party this week voted to include in their party platform a ban on abortion with no exceptions.

Morris goes on to assert that Romney will somehow benefit because he eventually tried to distance himself from Akin. Morris specifically notes the unsuccessful attempts of Romney and the rest of the GOP leadership to get Akin to withdraw and cites that as “a message to pro-choice women.” Indeed it is. It’s a message of failure. It’s a message that Romney et al are incompetent and have no influence, even over “kooky Republican congressmen” who see no need to comply with Romney’s demands. Contrary to Morris’ claim that women “don’t need to be afraid of Mitt Romney,” the reality is that they do need to fear Romney. and not just because he is unable to strip his party of its most extreme positions, but also because he holds those positions himself. The notion that it’s safe for pro-choice women to vote for Romney is just plain delusional.

Finally, if Morris thinks that the Akin story is a plus for Romney, then why is Romney avoiding it so strenuously? This morning Romney held a series of interviews with local media in Colorado. In order to be granted an interview, Romney forced the reporters to agree not to ask any questions about abortion or Akin. That’s an admission of fear on Romney’s part. It’s also a concession that he won’t get away with when talking to the national press.

Dick Morris seems to come up with new embarrassments every time he opens his mouth. He is a lazy thinker and a transparently biased hack. Last year he openly admitted that he was going to refrain from criticizing Romney, even when he disagreed with him.

Morris: “I decided a couple of – a month or two ago to stop dumping on Mitt Romney, for example … Not because I approve of Romneycare, not because I approve of his flip-flops, flip on abortion, but because I may have to be one of those who carries this guy for a couple of months when he’s running against Obama and I don’t want to make my own task harder.”

So Morris has confessed that he is operating as a shill for Romney, even though he privately objects to Romney’s positions and his tendency to flip-flop on issues. Yet Fox News continues to employ him as a “fair and balanced” political analyst. That says something about both Morris and Fox.

Fox News Editorial Hypes Reagan-Blessed Email Service

Don’t send that email! Your “liberal” email account is undermining your values and your country. That’s the allegation in a Fox News editorial by Michael Reagan.

Fox News Liberal Email

“If you use a Gmail or Yahoo e-mail address and are pro-life, support gun rights and oppose ObamaCare, you are funding activities aimed at trashing your own beliefs.”

The charges by Reagan are based on his assessment of campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans by employees of Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. It is a wholly invalid analysis because it represents the views of individuals who happen to work for those companies, not the views of the companies themselves. Reagan begins with the example of Yahoo’s CEO who bundled donations for the Obama campaign. The bulk of her fundraising actually involved personal acquaintances, people who had nothing to do with Yahoo. [Note: we know who is bundling for Obama because the campaign reports it on their web site. Mitt Romney refuses to reveal the identities of their bundlers]

Nevertheless, Reagan flatly and falsely states that “the proceeds of those [companies] are often used to support the liberal political agenda.” He offers no evidence to back that up. So the question arises as to what his motivation is to make these phony claims. And the answer is just a few paragraphs down:

“Conservative friends and associates are often surprised when I ask: ‘Why are you supporting liberal candidates and causes with your free e-mail?’ They react with disbelief, but that is precisely what is happening.

We devised Reagan.com as an alternative to the big e-mail providers so customers will know that they are subsidizing candidates or causes with which they disagree, but so they may also feel that their private messages stay that way.”

There you have it. It’s nothing but a bald-faced marketing pitch for Reagan’s own commercial enterprise aimed at frightened and paranoid conservatives. He is seeking to line his pockets with the profits from a service that charges $40.00 a year for something most people currently get for free. And Fox News is permitting their editorial pages to be hijacked by this advertisement for a private business that is operated by their own employee. Using op-eds for personal gain is strictly forbidden by legitimate news organizations. So I guess it’s OK for Fox to do it.

In addition to the violation of journalistic ethics, it is also notable that Michael Reagan, the adopted son of Saint Ronald, has chosen to soil the Reagan name by acquiring the Reagan.com domain and using it for such a brazenly self-serving commercial purpose. You would think that a URL as valuable as that would be put to use to advance the legacy of the former president and/or the principles he held. Then again, what principle is more representative of the Republican Party than personal greed at any expense?

Republicans Found Something They Would Raise Taxes For: Civil War Against Obama

The Fox News affiliate in Lubbock, Texas, interviewed County Judge Tom Head who explained why it is necessary to raise the tax rate by 1.7 cents the next fiscal year. One of the reasons he cited was that if President Obama is reelected…

“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.

“Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ’em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here’.”

What is going to take for people to accept the fact that the modern Republican Party is just plain batshit crazy? This isn’t borderline anymore. Tom Head is an actual judge, not the kind on People’s Court. And the GOP aversion to taxes is apparently flexible enough to be waived if the money is used to fund a military response to an imaginary United Nations assault on Lubbock. Really?

Judge Head later clarified his comments, although “clarified” may be the wrong word:

“As emergency management director I have to think of worst case scenario, and I used that as an example yesterday. Okay, in my opinion, the worst case scenario politically and financially right now is if Obama and the Senate Democrats stay in power. Okay, because I have some opinions what they’re doing and what they’re trying to do if they stay in power. And I have to prepare for that, okay.”

The people of Lubbock must feel so safe and cozy knowing that Judge Head(case) is preparing for every possible worst case scenario. When the rest of the nation succumbs to the Black Plague, or is overrun by marauding Swedes, Lubbuck alone will survive because Head will have anticipated the danger. That’s worth another 1.7 cents in taxes, isn’t it?

Press Pussies? Fox Nation Resorts To Profanity To Attack Obama And The Press

A story today on Fox Nation featured a headline that other news organizations might have considered obscene: Press Pussies Soft on Obama.

Fox Nation Press Pussies

For the Fox Nationalists, obscenity is no barrier to another opportunity to smear the President. Anyone who doesn’t believe that Fox deliberately chose to use profane language that is a pejorative allusion to vaginas in order to emasculate their targets doesn’t know Fox very well.

The story linked to an article on Fox’s sister newspaper the New York Post by right-wing hack Michael Goodwin. The underlying article was a lame effort to disparage Obama’s press conference yesterday. Goodwin filled the column with nonsense attacks and ad hominem insults. He began by comparing Obama’s presidency with the scandal-plagued administrations of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Of course, Obama has not had any scandals attributed to him, much less those with serious consequences like criminal break-ins and sexual misconduct.

What Goodwin thinks are equivalent controversies consist of the President having held fundraisers. Saints preserve us – a politician has engaged in soliciting donations! Then Goodwin is shocked – SHOCKED – that the President made a few references to his political opponents. That must be a first. Then, just before accusing Obama of lying “virtually every time he appears in public,” Goodwin outright lies by asserting that Obama leaked classified information for political gain. He made no effort to document that falsehood.

Goodwin went on to refer to the President as grubby, but then said that it was Obama who was taking the low road. He faulted Obama for “capitaliz[ing] on the nutso ‘legitimate rape’ comments of a GOP Senate candidate,” even though Obama was answering a question from a reporter. But in Goodwin’s delusional mind the reporter was a White House plant.

It should come as no surprise that when an ultra-right-wing enterprise like Fox News decides to employ profanity to attack their perceived enemies, they would choose one that is a derogatory reference to women. Yet somehow they still complain when they are criticized for engaging in a war on women.

For Goodwin to publish this column so soon after the lunatic ravings of Todd Akin demonstrates just how tone deaf the Republican machine is, and how insensitive they are to sexism and prejudice and the suffering of its victims.

Sarah Palin Silent On Todd Akin’s ‘Legitimate Rape’ Comments

Sarah PalinSarah Palin fancies herself a modern conservative advocate for women. She frequently postures on issues that impact the role of women in public life and demands apologies from perpetrators of perceived sexism. Despite opposing equal pay, Planned Parenthood, insurance coverage for contraceptives, affirmative action, and other matters generally found in the pro-woman agenda, the Mamma Grizzly steadfastly maintains that she is the future of feminism.

That makes it all the more curious that in the past 24 hours, as Todd Akin’s revolting remarks about “legitimate rape” have stirred rock-solid Republicans to unite in calling for his withdrawal, the only thing Sarah Palin has had to say on the matter is…

Palin:

That’s right. Palin has courageously stepped out of the shadows to say absolutely nothing about Todd Akin. She has not condemned his remarks, She has not called for his withdrawal. She has not stood up for the thousands of women who are victims of rape, many of whom became pregnant as a result. Palin has left them all in the lurch as Akin continues to insist that his campaign will proceed.

It’s not as if Palin has to hold back because she was a supporter of Akin and it would be embarrassing to turn on him now. During the Missouri GOP primary Palin endorsed Akin’s opponent, Sarah Steelman. Palin did reference Steelman in the post-Akin affair with a self-serving Tweet that was more of an I-told-you-so than a statement of principle:

So Palin found the time to praise herself and her political foresight, but she’s been unable to bring herself to criticize Akin or defend the women he insulted. It seems to be a pattern with Palin. She also never spoke out after Fox News commentator Liz Trotta asserted that women in the military should expect to be raped.

Perhaps Palin just has a problem with issues of sexual assault that prevent her from supporting the victims. But her silence on the Akin affair is particularly disturbing for someone who pretends to be concerned about the welfare of women.

[Update:] Leading from behind, Palin finally spoke up about Akin and called for him to “take one for the team,” which is ironic coming from Palin who was never exactly a team player and has repeatedly harmed her party’s electoral prospects. And as if to illustrate that point, she suggested that Steelman mount a third party run for the senate seat against the GOP nominee.

Romney And Ryan Think Seniors Don’t Care About Their Children

Much of the discussion about Medicare has centered around the question of who will be affected by the proposed reforms. The Obama campaign correctly points out that Romney’s pledge to repeal ObamaCare would immediately subject seniors to higher costs for prescription drugs and preventive care. The President also notes that the $716 billion dollars his plan saves would come from administrative expenditures and the reduction in waste, fraud, and abuse. Not a single dime would be cut from seniors’ benefits.

Romney and RyanHowever, a major talking point from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is that their plan to create a voucher program would not impact anyone who is 55 or older. The first question that raises is: Why not? If it’s so great, why are they preventing current Medicare recipients from enjoying it? Obviously, they recognize that their plan is objectionable and unpopular.

But the the more pressing problem is the notion that they can pacify today’s seniors by assuring them that they will not be harmed by the changes. They think that seniors will respond by saying…

“OK, thanks for not taking away the Medicare plan that is working so well for us. But go ahead and take it away from our children because who the hell cares about them. So long as we get ours those little snots can fend for themselves.”

If Rom-n-Ry think that seniors in Florida, or the rest of the nation, are going to be satisfied with assurances that their own benefits will be preserved but their kids will be hung out to dry, they are going to be in for a big surprise. Most seniors really do love their kids and grandkids and want the best for them. They will not willingly sacrifice the welfare of their children for promises that exempt themselves from the changes that reduce benefits and cost more.

The absurd suggestion that current recipients will not be effected is the very first item in a list of the “Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan.” Other elements are just as deceptive and/or harmful. For instance (taken directly from Mitt Romney’s web site):

#4: If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles.

This proposal reveals that the costs awaiting seniors will include unspecified co-pays and deductibles that will not be covered by the voucher, or “premium support.” The burden of that expense will fall on the recipient. It also makes clear the choices that seniors will face with regard to their health care. If their budgets are constrained they may have to settle for “less expensive plans” that fail to meet their needs. If it’s a choice between insurance or rent or groceries, it puts the recipient in an untenable situation. That is a big difference compared to what they get today from Medicare. It is also notable that any of the savings from choosing a an inferior plan cannot be spent on anything but authenticated medical expenses.

#5: “Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option.

That is an admission that the “traditional” plan that today’s seniors are familiar with will cease to exist. The costs for the recipient may be substantially higher than they are now. And they will be competing with private insurance companies whose plans may be less expensive, but also less comprehensive. That also forces seniors into making decisions driven more by budget than by need.

#7: Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors.

The assertion that competition among private insurance plans will hold down costs is refuted by the current market for heath care insurance. Does anyone reading this know of any insurance policy that has added benefits and cut premiums? Insurance companies are notoriously greedy in the way they administer their products, despite the fact that they are more profitable year after year. Most policies increase significantly over time while coverage is narrowed. That’s the free market that Rom-n-Ry want to force seniors into. And by encouraging seniors to exit Medicare, it will shrink the coverage pool, thus forcing costs higher while diluting the influence of Medicare to negotiate provider costs downward.

There are some services that ought not to be subject to the whims of the free market. Health care is one. Social Security is another. Just imagine the devastating hardship beneficiaries would have faced if their Social Security had been in the stock market in 2008. Yet that’s precisely what Rom-n-Ry support in their privatization plan. It is a plan that demonstrably harms seniors today and tomorrow. And seniors are not going to selfishly secure advantages for themselves at the expense of their kids. That would be a poor display of family values.

Damn! The Fox Nation Is A Disgusting Bunch Of Hateful Pigs

The Associated Press is reporting that comedian Rosie O’Donnell suffered a heart attack and received a stent during a brief hospitalization. Doctors said that her coronary artery was 99% blocked. She is now reported to be home and resting comfortably. And here is how that news was received by the miscreants at the Fox News online community, Fox Nation:

Fox Nation - Rosie O'Donnell

The repulsive Fox audience thinks that Rosie O’Donnell’s near-death experience was “Funny.” These are the people who pretend incessantly that they are pro-life, family values, Christians. The comments accompanying the article were strewn with insults, laughter, and references to her having deserved her suffering because she is (pick one or more) 1) Liberal; 2) Gay; 3) Fat; 4) Female.

Just unbelievable. What a gross display of boorish insensitivity. And this isn’t some obscure right-wing fringe site – It’s Fox News. And it tells us so much about what that audience stands for.