The Right’s Top 25 Journalists?

Tunku Varadarajan, national affairs correspondent for The Daily Beast, has compiled a list of what he and 50 academics, politicians, and journalists, consider to be the top 25 right-wing journalists in America. The most enlightening thing we learn from this list has nothing to do with the ranking of wingnuts in the media. What is truly fascinating is how it reveals their definition of a journalist. Here are the top 10:

  1. Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
  2. Glenn Beck, Fox News
  3. Rush Limbaugh, Radio Talk Show Host
  4. Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
  5. Bill O’Reilly, Fox News
  6. Michelle Malkin, Fox News/Blogger
  7. David Brooks, The New York Times
  8. Sean Hannity, Fox News
  9. James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal
  10. Matt Drudge, The Drudge Report

To be fair, placing Paul Gigot at the top of the list recognizes a veteran newsman who spent decades with ink-stained fingers pursuing his vocation as a reporter and editor. While devotedly right-wing in his current role as an editorialist and commentator, he also has the resume of a bona fide journalist. And that makes him the ONLY journalist on the list.

It is nearly hysterical that the 50 unnamed participants in this project elevated Glenn Beck to second place; and Rush Limbaugh to third; and Bill O’Reilly to fifth; and … well you get the idea. What’s more, Varadarajan obviously has a soft spot in his heart for his former employer, Rupert Murdoch. Seven of the top 10 are also Murdoch minions employed by either Fox News or the Wall Street Journal. I wonder if some of the few real journalists at those shops are upset that they were ignored in favor of Sean Hannity and Peggy Noonan?

It is rather telling that an assembly of conservative academics, politicians, and journalists, couldn’t actually come up with names of other conservatives who are actually journalists. One of their selections, Limbaugh, has already responded to the list by declaring that he shouldn’t be on it. At least he is honest enough in this circumstance to admit that what he does is not journalism.

Some of the notable non-journalists on the remainder of the list include raging propagandist Andrew Breitbart (11), serial interrupter Neil Cavuto (14), Coulter clone Laura Ingraham (21), and Marc Morano, a virulent Climate Crisis denier and science skeptic.

Overall, judging from this coterie of cranks, I’m surprised that James O’Keefe and Jeff Gannon weren’t given honorable mentions. Perhaps the panel should be consulted again and made aware of some of these glaring omissions. Remember, Joe the Plumber served as a war correspondent for Pajamas Media. How dare they insult these fine conservatives by failing to honor their contributions to the rightist media.

Fox Nation Inadvertantly Bashes Sarah Palin

There may be no better source for comedy than the comments posted on Fox Nation. They appear to be a nation of town idiots. Even when the subject is something trivial, they manage to elevate their foolishness. This was the case after last Saturday night’s Miss America pageant.

In a lighthearted reference to her fellow Alaskan, Sarah Palin, this year’s Miss Alaska, Sydnee Waggoner, introduced herself by joking that, “No, I can’t see Russia from my house.”

That impudent offense directed at the sainted Queen of the Tea Baggers was all it took to set off the crowd at Fox Nation. However, their ire hilariously ricocheted off of Waggoner and smacked Palin right across her face. The Fox Nationalists began by calling Waggoner a “big mistake,” a “dumb broad,” and a “stupid twit.” Then it really got funny.

Dickn52: “What’s to say. She’s an airhead beauty pageant contestant who hopes to ‘score’ on her looks.”

Liar-berals are Going Down: “Another airhead beauty pageant contestant. Just exactly what has she done? Stupid women are always good for a laugh.”

Um…..Do we really need to remind these geniuses that Palin was an airhead beauty pageant contestant, and Miss Alaska runner-up, hoping to score on her looks and who still hasn’t done anything? Nah, let’s let them wallow in their ignorance.

FYI: This year’s Miss America winner, Caressa Cameron, was asked her views on gay marriage during the the Miss Virginia pageant last year. She said that due to her religious beliefs, her personal opinion was that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but that she opposed laws prohibiting gays from marrying. I wonder if that played into the decision of pageant judge, Rush Limbaugh.

Fox Nation: Obama Reacts Too Swiftly To Haitian Earthquake

The headline on Fox Nation today shouts that: Pres. Obama Reacts to Haiti Earthquake Faster Than Christmas Bomber. How typical of Fox to turn a tragedy into a trivial partisan attack.

News Flash to Fox Nation: The Crotch Bomber succeeded in blowing up nothing other than his own loins. He was quickly subdued. The plane suffered no damage. There were no casualties amongst the passengers. He was taken into custody without incident and he remains incarcerated. Moments after the event there was no imminent risk to anyone on the plane or elsewhere. There was no reason to rush a response to the Crotch Bomber because the threat had been neutralized.

On the other hand, Haiti was struck by the worst earthquake the region has experienced in over two hundred years. Thousands may be dead, and thousands more in peril. Fast action is necessary and will undoubtedly save lives. The risk is severe and ongoing. But all the Fox Nationalists care about is politicizing the catastrophe and castigating the President for responding with appropriate urgency.

What a despicable bunch of cretins. Perhaps they would be happier with the Bush model that left New Orleans stranded, desperate, and dying, in the critical hours after Katrina.

At least the view from the right is thoroughly consistent. If a few air travelers (and wealthy airlines) are briefly threatened by an incompetent, wannabe terrorist, drop everything and rush off to Detroit. But if it’s an entire population of dark-skinned, poor people who are in danger, let them suffer. After all, as Rush Limbaugh said of the Haitian people this morning, “They produce zilch, zero, nada.” Therefore, there is no reason to extend any humanitarian services to alleviate their suffering. Or as Pat Robertson said, they brought it on themselves because they “swore a pact to the devil.” See? These lazy Satanists are just getting what they deserve.

For those who are not despicable rightist cretins, you can donate to Haitian relief efforts here:
International Committee of the Red Cross
Doctors Without Borders
Oxfam International

Law And Order LBO: Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly

As the year comes to a close, many people view the remaining days as an opportunity to tie up loose ends, complete unfinished projects, and maybe produce another accomplishment or two to top off the year on a high note. For folks like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly that means achieving something that surpasses their ordinary annual output of anger, hatred, and ignorance. This is the time of year to go for the gold, and you have to admire the tenacity of these professionals as they endeavor to reach new heights of stupidity and malice. Happy Holidays.

To this end, both Beck and O’Reilly serve up a heaping portion of boorish outrage directed at an episode of NBC’s Law and Order: SVU. The storyline concerned the murder of three immigrant children by a man obsessed with illegal aliens and possessed by the hateful rantings of a fictional TV talk show host, Gordon Garrison. In a pivotal scene, the lawyer for the defendant, played by John Larroquette, describes Garrison, Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly as…

“…a cancer spreading ignorance and hate. I mean, they’ve convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system.”

Perhaps that description, and the general plot, cut a little too close to the bone for Beck and O’Reilly. They may have seen more of their own dark underside in Garrison than they are comfortable acknowledging. This sends them both into a tizzy, infuriated by what they regard as a direct insult by the show’s producers and writers.

Billo-pediaBill O’Reilly starts off by telling his television audience that Dick Wolf, creator of NBC’s Law and Order, is “a despicable human being,” a “liar” and a “coward.” Seconds later he asserts that he doesn’t “demonize innocent human beings.” Apparently you lose your innocence if you disagree with O’Reilly or say anything unflattering about him. The entirety of his Talking Points rant was devoted to disparaging Wolf and glorifying himself. He even took partial responsibility for security fences on the US/Mexico border. But most of his tantrum made little sense, as usual.

In the course of his tirade, O’Reilly labeled NBC as “Propaganda Central in the USA.” (He must not watch much Fox News). But he undermines his own argument by immediately adding that it has the lowest ratings. How can it be the paragon of propaganda if no one is watching it?

For the record, NBC Entertainment is in fact the lowest rated broadcast entertainment network, but NBC News is the highest rated news broadcaster with four times as many viewers as O’Reilly. And that’s what makes all of this particularly bizarre. O’Reilly can’t seem to differentiate between reality and theater. He thinks that the dialogue of a character in a fictional TV program represents the opinion of the author. He thinks that if John Larroquette’s character says that O’Reilly is a cancer, then it is Wolf who believes that. And that’s as deep as O’Reilly’s comprehension can go.

The problem is that Larroquette is portraying a thoroughly unsavory character. He is not remotely sympathetic. He is, after all, defending a man who murdered innocent children. He is attempting to get his client off on an insanity defense and cast the blame elsewhere – to the talk show host. He is reviled by the show’s main characters and heroes. [SPOILER ALERT] He ultimately demonstrates his own extreme behavior by murdering his client. So the words to which O’Reilly objects were put into the mouth of the most unethical and unlikeable character. How on earth does O’Reilly interpret this as advocacy for those remarks? All of this easily discernible context notwithstanding, O’Reilly was mad as hell and he wasn’t going to take it anymore:

O’Reilly: I mean enough is enough with these network pinheads who shove propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment.

Is he referring to Dick Wolf or Roger Ailes? Because it seems to me that it is Fox that is using entertainment to disseminate propaganda. It is Fox that turned journalism on its head by casting loudmouth demagogues and witless beauty pageant rejects as news anchors. It is Fox that decorated their broadcasts with flamboyant graphics, alarmist “alerts,” and noisy soundtracks and gongs to announce even the most trivial events. And it is Fox that still pretends to be a news enterprise, while Law and Order has never presented itself as anything but drama.

Can O’Reilly tell the difference? Maybe his comment above is referring to Glenn Beck, who describes his own program as the “Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment.” Wouldn’t that make Beck a “pinhead” shoving “propaganda down our throats under the guise of entertainment?” For his part, Beck also misread the Law and Order segment for all the same reasons O’Reilly did. But Beck took a different tack. Rather than hysterically attacking Wolf and company, Beck launches into a self-serving defense to absolve himself of responsibility for the sort of violence portrayed in the program. He describes himself as “just a dad” and defiantly asks: “Where is the evidence for inciting any violence?”

Beck has the sort of convenient memory that allows one to be a sociopath without any messy recollection of his vile deeds. He forgets that he once fantasized about choking Michael Moore to death with his bare hands:

“I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out…”

He forgets his frequent radio bit wherein he mulls over who he would like to beat to death with a shovel:

“I’ve been sitting here for the last few minutes trying to come up with a list of people I want to kill with a shovel. […] How many people have I said let’s kill with a shovel, huh? How many people have I said let’s line ’em up and shoot ’em in the head? I think quite a few.”

I don’t know many dads who articulate these revolting ideas. Beck also forgets the numerous calls for his legion of demented disciples to “fight back” against an enemy that is deliberately trying to attack your family, your values, your faith, and even to destroy your country. Marxists and fascists are taking over Washington. They are indoctrinating your children. They are on your doorstep. Beck insists that this is not a time for compromise or debate. He says that “You don’t compromise on your destruction.” It is an Apocalyptic Gospel that leaves little option for true patriots. They either fight or they, and everything they love, dies. It doesn’t matter if Beck occasionally recites legal disclaimers to refrain from violence. Once you’ve convinced people that the very essence of their existence is threatened, there are going to be those who will conclude that violence is acceptable – even inevitable – as self-defense.

Rush Limbaugh - Riot in DenverBeck speaks in a Da Vinci coded language about things that only he can see to a congregation that is especially vulnerable to a message that only they can hear. Rush Limbaugh is even more direct. In advance of the Democratic National Convention in Denver last year, Limbaugh told his listeners to Screw the world! Riot in Denver!

“I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.”

He couldn’t be much clearer than that. Limbaugh has yet to comment on the Law and Order episode that mentioned him and O’Reilly and Beck, but his record of offensive and hostile rhetoric like that above is well documented.

If you take the combined blather of these shoutcasters, it isn’t hard to foresee an outcome not unlike that of the one played out on Law and Order. And perhaps much worse. Yet they will continue to deny any culpability for their irresponsible fear mongering. And they will fire back at any criticism that holds them accountable. Even if it doesn’t make any logical sense, as this incident with Law and Order demonstrates. And even if it contradicts their professed appreciation for the First Amendment, as they seek to silence the creative output of a television dramatist. (Note: O’Reilly’s guest for the discussion on this subject was Laura Ingraham, author of “Shut Up and Sing,” a repulsive assault on free expression that reduces the role of artists to trivialities, ignoring their contributions to society and their potential for insight and inspiration).

But more than anything else, this affair reveals how intellectually vacant these losers are. They are incapable of grasping the meaning of a popular TV cop drama – which is not exactly the pinnacle of human intelligence. They are just angry that someone said something about them that they vaguely regard as adverse. And that’s enough to launch a full scale media war. Because, in the end, all they really want is an issue to blow out of proportion; a hyperbolic fireball of frenzy; a meaningless and dishonest controversy. An excuse to raise their voices, pull out their hair, and drive their viewers into a panic.

Like I said above…Happy Holidays.

p.s. Ice-T has a few words for O’Reilly.

Update: Just one day after all the whining about how liberal Law and Order is, and how it is spewing leftie propaganda, the program aired an episode that told a very different story. This one featured an ACORN-like community organizer whose murdered body was found with the word “FED” scrawled across his chest. However, the conclusion revealed that it was not some right-wing, anti-government, Beckoid who was responsible, but the head of the community organizing group who was attempting to cover up an affair. So having indicted the liberals in this episode, will Beck and O’Reilly and the vast, conservative, Hollywood-bashing, over-reactionaries retract their allegations of bias against producer, Dick Wolf? Don’t bother staying tuned.

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Terrifies The Boy Scouts

Last night Fox News CEO Roger Ailes was honored by the Boy Scouts of America with the 2009 Good Scout Award. If his corpulent visage wasn’t enough to frighten the children, his acceptance speech surely turned the trick. Here is an excerpt that was broadcast by the boot-licking toadies of Fox & Friends:

So Ailes is “heartened to know that what the enemies of America don’t know is that someday they will meet the courage, resilience, dedication of these young Americans.” If you were a ten year old Scout in the audience, would you be heartened to know that powerful adults like Roger Ailes are already conscripting you into armies to face future enemies? And isn’t this the same sort of government indoctrination of innocent children by Ailes, for which his network has so furiously condemned President Obama?

Ailes was introduced by his good friend Rush Limbaugh. In the introduction, Limbaugh candidly revealed something that most observers already know about Fox News, but which Ailes himself has decried in the past as a great danger:

Limbaugh: Roger’s never been on camera. Roger is not actively in the director’s chair every day for all these shows and yet he’s created this culture where everybody there is on the same page and proud, and they’re winning.

Ailes: The greatest danger to journalism is a newsroom or a profession where everyone thinks alike. Because then one wrong turn can cause an entire news division to implode. We must respect and encourage diversity of thought and speech in the newsroom.

I think we can comprise and agree that Fox is both a myopic purveyor of lock-step biases AND a great danger.

Chris Wallace Romances Rush Limbaugh On Fox News Sunday

If there really is a war between the White House and Fox News, Fox has fired the most recent shot. By booking Rush Limbaugh on his Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace has unveiled his undisguised enmity of the Obama administration. After a week of grueling debate on critical issues like health care and Afghanistan, Limbaugh’s appearance had no newsworthy justification. He had only his well worn opinions to offer, and nothing of substance regarding the week’s developments. The only purpose in booking Limbaugh is one that reveals Wallace’s biases and cynical desperation: He needs the ratings for his last place clunker of a news show.

The interview did have some sparks of entertainment. Wallace leads off with a comically prejudiced question:

“This week it will be one year since Barack Obama was elected president. In that time, what has he done for and to the country?”

Wallace asking Limbaugh what Obama has done “to” the country is a milestone in the history of softball questions. It superbly set Limbaugh up to make the startling announcement that he is “really, really worried;” that he has “never seen this kind of radical leadership;” that he believes that “the economy is under siege, is being destroyed;” and that it is “a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom” that “may be on purpose.” Limbaugh went on to describe Obama as immature and inexperienced. And in an unparalleled demonstration of a total lack of self-awareness, he said…

“I think he’s got an out-of-this-world ego. He’s very narcissistic.”

As the country’s collective laughter subsided, Limbaugh continued bashing the President, saying that he doesn’t care about Afghanistan and national security in general, or about soldiers and their families in particular, but that he has seen George W. Bush cry. He accused Obama of plotting “to regulate every aspect of human behavior” via his health care proposal. And when Wallace asked a question sent in by a viewer, the exchange went like this:

Viewer: If President Obama would agree to an interview, what would be your first question?

Limbaugh: Why are you doing this? Why? What in … what … What do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?

Now there’s a question that will surely stump Obama. That Rush sure is a brilliant inquisitor. It is that sort of superiority that drives Limbaugh’s success. When Wallace asked him about Glenn Beck, Limbaugh agreed that Beck has tapped into a vein of fear and anger. Ya think? But then he sought to take credit for it by asserting that before he came on the scene there was nothing that could be compared to him. He assumed responsibility for…

“…all of this conservative media, conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere.”

It is interesting that Wallace just sat there as Limbaugh declared that he had created Fox News. [Note: Roger Ailes, who actually did create Fox News, had previously produced Limbaugh’s failed attempt to syndicate a TV show] And Wallace also didn’t seem to be bothered by Limbaugh lumping Fox into the vast garbage heap of conservative media.

Which brings us back to the Fox/White House war. If Fox were not deliberately adversarial, then why wouldn’t Wallace object to Limbaugh’s characterization? Why would Wallace have booked Limbaugh in the first place? This can only be viewed as a hostile act aimed at the President and crafted for Fox’s audience of rightist disciples. Who else even wants to hear what Limbaugh has to say? In the interview, Limbaugh delusionally confesses to Wallace that…

“It was a tough thing, Chris, to learn to take as a measure of success being hated, you know, by 20 or 30 percent of the country.”

If he thinks that’s tough, the real numbers should really depress him. In fact, they are the reverse of his rosy citation. Contrary to his unfavorables being between 20 and 30 percent, Gallup has his favorable rating at 28%, Democracy Corps has 21%, and CBS puts him at 19%. If this is war, Limbaugh and Fox are woefully short of ammunition.

Ever since Anita Dunn had spoken up honestly about the war Fox News had started against President Obama, even before his inauguration, there has been a great gnashing of teeth on the part of conventional punditry. Most, though not all, took the pedestrian and self-serving view that the President ought not to take aim at a media outlet. However, it would be folly to permit an enterprise with less credibility than the National Enquirer to persist in outlandish attacks without noting their journalistic deficiencies. The result has been that a public discussion has begun, and it can only be regarded as positive that much of the media has had to confront the question of whether Fox is actually a news organization. And nothing can be more delightful than hearing Fox anchors and reporters raising the issue of their own legitimacy on their own air. Even as they defend themselves, they replant the question in the minds of viewers.

With obviously partisan programs like Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday handing over large chunks of scarce airtime to committed conservative bulldogs like Limbaugh, the question as to the fairness and balance of Fox News becomes ever more evident.

NYT: David Brooks vs. The Wizard of Beck

It took long enough. The evidence has been there for years. Somehow it has been inadvertently missed or deliberately ignored by most of the Conventional Media. But the truth has a persistent habit of elbowing its way into the public consciousness.

Today’s New York Times published an editorial by conservative pundit David Brooks that breaks news that most observant analysts have known for months or years: The uber-rightist blowhards on Fox News and talk radio are phony commanders of a tiny, but rabid assortment of fringe-dwelling followers. And the more they are appeased, the farther they venture from reality.

Brooks: “It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche – even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.”

Better late than never. The revelation that Brooks is boasting is simply the notion that it’s better to win at the ballot box than on the idiot box. Two months ago I wrote an article that illustrated just how contrary were the concepts of media and political success: As Fox News Goes Up, The GOP Goes Down. A month before that I published an article on how Fox News Is Killing The Republican Party. It explored in detail how the embrace of lunatics and their demented ravings, along with a misunderstanding of the television marketplace, was literally dragging the Republican Party down to some of its lowest historical depths:

Me: “The more the population at large associates Republican ideology with the agenda of Fox News, and the fringe operators residing there, the more the party will be perceived as out of touch, or even out of their minds.”

~~~

“Republicans are riding the coattails of Fox News as if it were representative of a booming conservative mandate in the electorate. They are embracing Fox’s most delusional eccentrics. This is leading to the promotion of similar eccentrics within the party. Which brings us the absurd spectacle of the network’s nuts interviewing the party’s pinheads.”

I could even go back to May of 2007 when I wrote The Cult Of Foxonality™ Part I, that argued that Fox viewers had become more attached to the network than to the Republican Party or conservatism.

So Brooks is joining a rather recent parade of pundits who are stepping back from the wacko contingent. Last month the American Enterprise Institute’s David Frum took a swipe at the “reckless defamation” practiced by Glenn Beck. Frum advised that it is beyond time that conservatives begin…

“…emancipating ourselves from leadership by the most stupid, the most cynical, and the most truthless.”

And Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs warned of

“…further marginalization of the GOP unless people start behaving like adults instead of angry kids throwing tantrums and ranting about conspiracies and revolution.”

However, as Brooks appears to have attained enlightenment, he sadly slips back into pundit-speak that betrays his lack of insight. In lamenting the egotistical self-promotion of the ranting class, Brooks blames Democrats for their endurance:

“They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P.”

What Brooks fails to grasp is that Democrats aren’t enabling Limbaugh, Beck, et al. They are anchoring Republicans with the dead weight of these TV and radio clowns as a means to define an otherwise personality-less party. It isn’t an accident – it’s a strategy. Just as Brooks recognizes that the association of media nutcases with the party is harmful, he should figure out that that is precisely why Democrats are encouraging the association.

The most profound observation in the column was Brooks’ assertion that the problem for Republicans is that “They mistake media for reality.” That is undeniably true for the Party as well as for most of the media. In fact, it is an even bigger problem that the media mistakes itself for reality. And the consequences are devastating for both the practice of journalism and for democracy.


[Purchase FreakShow stickers at Crass Commerce]

Addendum: Neal Gabler has an outstanding editorial in the the Los Angeles Times that addresses these same issues: Politics as religion in America. Highly recommended.

Neil Cavuto’s Cable Clinic And Medical Tourism Scam

Neil Cavuto, Fox News VP and host of “Your World”, has a consistent record of misrepresenting the facts of pretty much any issue he addresses. Whether it’s the economy, national security, climate change, etc., you can rely on his determination to construct the most absurd and untrue arguments to advance his partisan agenda.
 
 
 
Healthcare has long been on that list of subjects as evidenced by the ridiculous graphic above from his program in July 2007.

Recently he has spent much of his program presenting a parade a of patients disappointed by the healthcare they have received in Canada. These unfortunate folks have had to endure some sort of healthcare calamity that they and Cavuto characterized as the inevitable consequence of national healthcare. The result of this substandard care, according to Cavuto, is the creation of a swarm of medical tourists fleeing Canada for superior treatment here in the U.S.

Amongst the guests that Cavuto welcomed as witnesses were a couple of Canadians who came to warn America of the horrors of free, accessible healthcare. However, in both cases the patients’ stories revealed that the U.S. system was actually worse than the one they were allegedly fleeing.

Shona Holmes told Cavuto that she had to mortgage her house to get treatment in the U.S. Lucky for her, she had a house to mortgage. Americans facing similar ordeals have lost their homes and gone into severe debt from which they may never recover. And those without homes have no options whatsoever, unlike Holmes and her fellow Canadians.

Lin Gilbert suffered from debilitating back pain that she says was untreated in an untimely manner in her native Vancouver. She was also unemployed and on welfare. Eventually she got the surgery she needed and is pain free today. It cost her nothing. She has no debt related to her medical treatment. An American with the same problem would still be suffering or would have racked up an unmanageable debt that would haunt them and their family for the rest of their life.

I can’t speak to what delayed the treatments in Canada for these women, but surveys show that they are the exceptions. Most Canadians are satisfied with their healthcare program, with an overwhelming 82% saying that they prefer their system to a private system like that of their neighbors to the south. Furthermore, a Gallup poll showed that Canadians are far more satisfied with their system than we Americans are with ours.

In what may be the most outrageous tale of medical panic, Cavuto invited an American, Linda Dorr, to his program to describe her condition and the choices she made. She was diagnosed as having the beginning stages of breast cancer. She was covered by insurance and there were many treatment options available to her, but she elected to have a double mastectomy because – if you can believe this – she was afraid that if Obama’s healthcare plan went into effect, and she needed further treatment years down the road, that it would not be approved by the government health bureaucrats that she assumed would be rationing her care in the future.

Think about that. The double mastectomy was not medically indicated. There was no reason to presume that less intrusive measures would not have been effective. There was no reason to believe that she would ever need such drastic surgery. What’s more, there was no evidence that, should her condition have deteriorated, she wouldn’t have been approved for whatever additional treatment she would have required under the Obama plan. In fact, considering the way the Congressional process is proceeding, there is a possibility that Obama’s plan will never be implemented at all. So based on the fear that a legislative program that has not even been voted on might eventually pass, and that the this phantom plan might impose some sort of harsh rationing that would deny treatment to certified breast cancer patients, and that she might have a more severe recurrence of her cancer – on the basis of all of those assumptions she elected to have a double mastectomy that was not presently necessary and might never be. And her doctor performed it!

As far as I’m concerned, her decision making skills were impaired, perhaps understandably, due to her diagnosis. It would be an understatement to say that her election was an overreaction to a set of circumstances that had not, and might never, take place. Her doctor, on the other hand, should have his license revoked for performing an operation that was not medically indicated simply because of his patient’s irrational and unfounded fears.

The broader objective of Neil Cavuto’s cavalcade of discontented Canadians, and one delusional American, is to steer public opinion away from meaningful healthcare reform. It is a deliberate campaign to foment fear and distrust of reforms that he casts as foreign and risky. He has embarked on a mission to scrape up every disgruntled Canadian he can find and imply that there is a swarm of them trampling across the border in bandages and wheel chairs, moaning and praying as they beg to be admitted to our hospitals of mercy.

There’s just one thing ….. Not only is there no such exodus from Canada, the medical refugees are actually heading out of the U.S. in much larger numbers than those coming in.

Despite Cavuto’s dishonest attempt to portray America as a haven for the world’s sick who are flocking here for the best healthcare in the world, the truth is quite the opposite. A Deloitte study last year revealed that about 400,000 people worldwide sought care in the U.S., while more than twice that many Americans went abroad. And the number of American medical adventurers is predicted to grow to six million by next near. A poll of Americans by Gallup showed that as many as 40% would consider leaving the U.S. for treatment if the quality was the same and the costs significantly cheaper. Those criteria have already been met to the satisfaction of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Yet disinformation agents like Cavuto still manufacture witnesses to argue against reality. And it isn’t just Cavuto…

SEAN HANNITY: People from Canada flock to the U.S. Why would you want to ruin the best health care system in the world with the greatest advancement of pharmaceuticals and technology?
GLENN BECK: America has the best health care system in the world. Is it perfect? No. But it’s still the best. Yet we’re about to throw it all away in favor of… government-run health care.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: We’ve got the greatest health care system in the world. Nobody leaves this country for health coverage. Everybody in the rest of the world comes here.

The facts are obviously contrary to the ravings of these lunatics. And in their ignorance, they continue to assert that the as-yet unwritten proposal constitutes a “government-run” plan despite the fact that no version of the known drafts could accurately be described that way. Even the comparison to Canada is misleading because no one has proposed a Canadian-style plan either.

So the next time you hear xenophobic cheerleaders espousing the fiction that the United States has the best healthcare in the world, remember the facts outlined above. Remember that the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the world. Remember that those falsely bragging about America’s healthcare preeminence are generally well off, well insured, and well indebted to the institutions, corporate and political, that profit from the status quo.

All You Need To Know About Rush Limbaugh

In another in a series of Fox News PR events for Republican dickwads, Greta Van Susteren hosted Rush Limbaugh, giving him two days of airtime on her show. There is a great deal of inane banter to be mined from this auto-neurotic strokefest, but I’ll just focus on one brief segment wherein Van Susteren sought to ascertain Limbaugh’s preference for President in 2012:

VAN SUSTEREN: But not in terms of horse race. I’m looking at who do you sort of, from an ideology point of view, do you think is the smartest or best candidate in your mind now?

LIMBAUGH: Well, that’s — I don’t want to answer that criteria, smartest and best. I’m looking right now at who can win.

That about says it all. Limbaugh, and the Republican establishment, is unconcerned with intelligence or qualifications. They just want any old douchebag who can pull in some votes. That would explain George W. Bush back in 2000. It would likewise explain Sarah Palin who, as it turns out, is the candidate that Limbaugh singles out for her ability to excite audiences and frighten Democrats.

For the record, there isn’t a Republican on the horizon that would thrill me more as their candidate in 2012 than Sarah Palin. In fact, a Palin/Steele ticket would be a dream come true. I’m not sure who Limbaugh thinks is afraid of her. Every Democrat I know is praying for her to be the nominee. The only thing I’m afraid of is that she’ll flame out before the campaign gets started.

It is notable that Van Susteren specifically requested that Limbaugh answer her question “not in terms of horse race.” Limbaugh completely ignored that request and gave a response that centered solely on the horse race and his preference for a winning candidate over one who is smart or best suited for the job. Then this hypocrite has the gall to say that he cares about the United States and the American people. And to compound his hypocrisy he follows that up with:

LIMBAUGH: “It’s not about — it’s not about personalities. It’s not about horse races. It’s about the country.”

He really needs to make up his mind. First he refuses to answer a question about what is best for the country in favor of his assessment of the horse race. Then he says it isn’t about the horse race at all.

And there are people who really buy this garbage?

Rush Limbaugh Blames Obama For Sanford’s Sins

Just when you think you’ve heard everything…when you think that the rightist blowhards couldn’t possibly make bigger fools of themselves…from out of nowhere someone steps forward to accept the challenge. Today that someone was Rush Limbaugh.

On his radio show today, Limbaugh engaged in his routine whining and ranting until he was inspired to address the pathetic affairs of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Then Limbaugh embarks on a fantastical journey that imagines Sanford a victim who was merely trying to escape the Hell that Obama has made of America:

First: “[Sanford] knows that somebody knows what’s going on. He knows his wife knows. So he ups and leaves for five days. He doesn’t leave anybody in charge of the state in case there’s an emergency. This is almost like: ‘I don’t give a damn. The country is going to hell in a handbasket and I just want out of here.’ He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn’t want any part of it. He lost the battle.”

~~~

Later: “My first thought was he said: ‘To hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country. We can’t do anything to stop it. I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina. My wife’s left me, the hell with it. I’m going to enjoy life what little time I’ve got left.’ Folks, there are a lot of people that are looking at life, they’re saying screw it.”

Limbaugh’s “theory” is that Sanford just couldn’t take it anymore. He cracked. The pressure of having the federal government give his state and his constituents billions of dollars for jobs and economic renewal was too much for him handle.

So what did he do? He went back in time a whole year and commenced an adulterous affair with a woman in Argentina. Limbaugh seems to think the affair began a few days ago when Sanford went missing. He also thinks that Sanford’s wife just found out and left him. The truth is, she has known for five months, and I’m not sure it is accurate to assert that she left him. After all, he was the one that cheated on her and ran for the border.

Nevertheless, Limbaugh believes that Sanford was so overwhelmed by Obama’s governance that he would abandon his family and his responsibilities as governor. For he no longer gave a damn about anything but his own sexual gratification. What’s more, Limbaugh is actually sympathetic to that irresponsible behavior. He even thinks that many more Americans are on the verge of doing the same thing. They are just a bailout away from saying “screw it” and running off to find love in an exotic tropical hideaway.

And it’s all because the Democrats are destroying the country. Limbaugh, the symbol of the conservative movement, defends Sanford for quitting and hightailing it to Buenos Aires. Limbaugh, the thrice-divorced voice of family values, justifies infidelity and fornication. Limbaugh, the icon of Republican faith in personal responsibility lays the blame for Sanford’s indiscretions on political policies in Washington, D.C.

It’s nice to know that there are still some consistent arbiters of morality self-righteously imposing their warped and hypocritical convictions on the rest of us.