The Roots Of Romney’s Rage: Where His 47% Fiasco Came From

Posted by Mark NC on September 18, 2012 at 3:45 am. 39 Comments :

The Making of a Meme
Just in case anyone is wondering where Mitt Romney came up with the data behind the contemptuous affront he leveled at half of the population that he hopes to serve as president, it is a tenet of conservative philosophy that has been expressed repeatedly by pundits and politicians alike, although rarely with such disdain. Here is what Romney, a man who accuses President Obama of being divisive, told a roomful of wealthy donors:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”

The erroneous charge concerning an alleged 47% of American freeloaders is one that has been exciting right-wingers for more than two years and has been notably championed by Fox News. To fill in the background of this story, I am re-posting an article I wrote in August of 2011 that describes the length and breadth of this fictitious political assault on the middle and working class of America. It illustrates explicitly the themes that Romney articulated to his wealthy supporters.

Debt Wish XI: The GOP/Tea Party Plan To Tax The Poor
(August 24, 2011) America’s Republican/Tea Party contingent, who are defined by their dogmatic devotion to lower taxes as a panacea for everything, have finally found a sector of society that they can comfortably saddle with a higher tax burden: The Poor.

That’s right. These anti-tax zealots have concluded that fairness cannot be achieved in the country’s tax code as long as there are disadvantaged freeloaders who are allegedly not paying into the system. While they fight tooth and nail to protect wealthy individuals and corporations from contributing even modest amounts to the nation’s recovery, the rightist brigade is marching lock-step in favor of soaking the poor in order to heal the malaise on Wall Street and the misery of long-suffering bankers. Their battle cry goes something like this: “Half of the Country Doesn’t Pay Any Taxes At All.” Fox News has been pushing that theme for quite a while. For the past two years they headlined it on Fox Nation right at tax time.

This movement is not some scruffy assemblage of disorganized trust-funders seeking to upgrade their yachts. It is a coordinated campaign that has pulled together high profile proponents from politics and the press. Here is a sampling of the breadth and unity of the movement and the message:

Rick Perry (R-TX): We’re dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax.
Michele Bachmann (R-MN): A system in which 47% of Americans don’t pay any tax is ruinous for a democracy.
Sarah Palin (R-AK): The problem is more than 40% pay no income taxes at all.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT): 51 percent don’t pay anything.
Jim DeMint (R-SC): Over half of Americans pay no federal income tax.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY): In fact, about half of Americans don’t pay any income taxes at all.
John Boehner (R-OH): Fifty-one percent — that is, a majority of American households — paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Eric Cantor (R-MD): We also have a situation in this country where you’re nearing 50 percent of people who don’t even pay income taxes.
Alan West (R-FL): Currently we have some 40-45% of Americans who are not paying any taxes.

We’re not through yet.

Donald Trump (R-HisOwnEgo): You do have a problem because half of the people don’t pay any tax.
Bill O’Reilly (Fox News): 50 percent of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax now.
Stuart Varney (Fox News): About half the people who work in America, half the households, actually, pay any federal income tax at all.
Dave Briggs (Fox News): [A]lmost half of this country pays no income tax whatsoever.
Gretchen Carlson (Fox News): But what does that mean when you factor in that 50 percent of the nation doesn’t even pay federal income tax? Is that fair?
[Idiot Award Winner] Steve Doocy (Fox News): With 47% of Americans not paying taxes – 47% – should those who don’t pay be allowed to vote?
Sean Hannity (Fox News): 50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes.
Neil Cavuto (Fox News): I’ve discovered nearly half of this country’s households don’t pay any taxes at all.

Oh yes, there’s more.

Dave Ramsey (Fox News): This idea that 42% of Americans don’t pay anything…that’s just morally wrong.
Brian Kilmeade (Fox News): Fifty-one percent of the country isn’t paying any taxes at all.
Eric Bolling (Fox News): 43 percent of households don’t pay any federal tax.
Glenn Beck (Right-Wing Radio): There was like 48 percent say they pay their right amount of taxes and 49 percent don’t pay any tax.
Rush Limbaugh (Right-Wing Radio): Meanwhile, 45% of Americans pay nothing.
Gary Bauer (Right-Wing Evangelist): But the reality is that nearly half of Americans don’t pay any income tax.
Rick Warren (Right-Wing Evangelist): HALF of America pays NO taxes. Zero.
Ted Nugent (Right-Wing Douchebag): This, of course, will not apply to those 50 percent of Americans who pay no income taxes.

Is there anyone who could seriously argue that this is not a coordinated effort aimed at demonizing low-income and working class citizens? The conformity and ubiquity of the identical messaging from such a broad spectrum of players is audacious and disturbing. And what’s worse, it is deliberately misleading and/or false.

Tax Payer Chart Click chart to enlarge.

First of all, claims that half the population pay no taxes at all are factually wrong. (See the chart at the left from the Wall Street Journal). There are about 46% who do not pay federal income taxes, but most of them do pay many other taxes including Social Security, state and local, sales, property, gas, etc. Secondly, it should come as no surprise that those with little or no tax liability have little or no income. The majority of this group is comprised of senior citizens, students, the disabled, and the unemployed. Those are the folks that the right wants to tap for new revenue rather than the rich who they have taken to calling “job creators” despite the fact that they haven’t created any jobs since they got the Bush tax cuts a decade ago.

To put this into perspective, federal income taxes account for just 20% of all taxes. When you include all the other sources of tax revenue, people making $20,000 a year pay approximately the same effective tax rate as people making $500,000, give or take 5 percent. However, those earning a half-million have seen their rate decline almost 50% since 1980, while the rate for the 20K earners barely budged.

What’s more, corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue dropped from 27.3% in 1955, to 8.9% in 2010. During that same time period individual income/payrolls as a percentage of federal revenue skyrocketed from 58% to 81.5%. Thus the burden of paying for our government shifted broadly from corporations to ordinary people (notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people). These facts prove that the whole faux controversy over the tax liability of low income Americans is, in technical terms, a crazy zombie lie.

Also worthy of note is that one of the main reasons that many Americans owe no federal income tax is due to the earned-income tax credit that was introduced by Republican President Gerald Ford and expanded by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And now the GOP is threatening to impose a tax hike on working people by opposing the extension of President Obama’s Payroll Tax reduction. This relief was passed as a temporary measure and is set to expire at the end of this year. Obama has proposed extending it for another year, but House Republicans are balking, saying that “not all tax relief is created equal” (Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX), and that tax reductions, “no matter how well-intended,” will push the deficit higher (Rep. David Camp, R-MI). Camp is a member of the deficit reduction seeking Super Committee. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), says the legislator “has never believed that this type of temporary tax relief is the best way to grow the economy.”

Really? Is this the same Eric Cantor who fought so fiercely for the temporary tax relief produced by Bush’s tax cuts for the rich? Cantor, and the rest of the Tea-publicans, are putting their deficit cutting necks on the line to raise the 120 billion dollars that would be restored to the treasury by letting the Payroll tax relief expire, but they will take the fight to Hell and back before considering the recovery of 800 billion dollars from the expiration of Bush’s gift to taxpayers earning more $250,000 a year. Apparently Republicans are opposed to temporary tax relief when it benefits the middle and working classes, but they are wildly in favor of it when it benefits the wealthy.

How can the GOP get away with portraying themselves as tax-cutters while advancing an agenda that would increase taxes for most Americans who happen not to be rich? How can the Tea Party assert through their acronym that they have been “Taxed Enough Already” when they view seniors, and other low-income Americans as not taxed enough? And when will the media expose this brazen hypocrisy?

So it’s clear that Romney was not speaking off the cuff in this newly released video. He merely reiterated what has been a mainstay of the conservative agenda for some time. If he tries to explain this away as a mistake or a gaffe, he is going to have to provide explanations for all of the identical statements itemized above. There is nothing out of character in the remarks he gave at his fundraiser. He is, after all, the same guy who said “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” He’s the same guy who said “If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy.” His denigration of Americans struggling during hard time is entirely on message, just as RNC chairman Reince Preibus said following the release of the video.

The condescending tone of Romney’s comments is what is likely to cause the most damage to his campaign. But let us not forget that the substance of his remarks is consistent with Republican ideology, and it is woven intricately into the fabric of the party’s structure. It reflects the views of their congressmen and senators and state officeholders. And it flows through the airwaves of their PR division, Fox News, and down the media food chain from there.

[Update] Romney may want to do some research into those 47 percenters he is writing off. Of the ten states with the highest percentage of residents who pay no federal income tax, ten are solid red, Republican states.

Not So Breitbart: This Web Site Smells Worse Than Its Decomposing Founder

Posted by Mark NC on May 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm. 5 Comments :

At Breitbart News they are apparently beginning to feel the heat as they continually come up empty in their faux investigations. The site has become a parody of a right-wing disinformation center that produces more laughter than news. Consequently, they are steeping in the stench of desperation which only results ever more pathetic excuses for journalism. Yesterday they posted three standout hysterical failures that only prove what a bunch of losers Andrew left behind to sour his legacy.

Breitbart-Obama's SAT 1) Exclusive: The Vetting – Did Obama Have Lower SAT Scores Than George W. Bush?
This article by Charles C. Johnson may be exclusive because no one else would run a story so thoroughly devoid of substance. The fact that the question in the title is never answered is consistent with the rest of the phony series allegedly “vetting” President Obama. The article opens by bragging that…

“Breitbart News has established that Obama’s grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.

Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.”

Unfortunately, Breitbrat Charlie established nothing with regard to Obama’s grades. He merely engaged in wild speculation based on flimsy data that doesn’t affirm his contention. He provided zero evidence that Obama’s grades were low, or that his class was “the worst in recent memory.”

Based on his own source it is entirely possible that Obama’s grades were far higher than the average for his class. There is no stipulation that he was average or below. That is completely made up by the Breitbrats. And the claim that the class was “the worst” is equally false. The only thing their source said was that “On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined.” It does not say that it declined to the worst and it says nothing about Obama’s placement.

This feverish attack on Obama’s intelligence by the morons at Breitbart News culminates in an absurd comparison between Obama and George W. Bush. At Harvard Obama held the prestigious post of editor of the Harvard Law Review and he graduated Magna Cum Laude. Bush barely graduated with a C- from Yale, and that was probably due to his father being a legacy and U.S. Congressman. There is simply no comparison of intellectual capacity between an accomplished honors student like Obama and a slacker riding his family coattails like Bush.

Breitbart-Ailes/Stewart 2) Roger Ailes: Jon Stewart Told Me He’s a Socialist
The headline in this article is a rehashing of scurrilous insults that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes first threw at the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart back in December of 2010. At that time Ailes told interviewer Howard Kurtz that the executives at NPR were Nazis, that there was a cabal of left-wing rabbis, and that Stewart was both an atheist and a socialist. It was an utterly unhinged tirade that exposed Ailes as borderline psychotic. And now, Breitbrat John Nolte posts this screed attacking Stewart as an “elitist millionaire socialist” who…

“…would like to be the ‘benevolent’ overlord who tells us what’s best for us, especially in areas of speech, an area Stewart is desperate to control.”

Is Jon Stewart really a tyrant-in-waiting who, perched on his throne at the all-powerful Comedy Central, is desperate to control free speech? One shudders at the omnipotence of this unholy overlord. But how can this be if, as Breitbrat John says, he is also an “establishment toady” protecting Obama/Goliath? There aren’t very many historical examples of toady dictators.

Nolte goes on to describe Stewart as “talented, but … pathetic.” His hatred of Stewart goes back a long way. He has posted numerous disparaging articles about him, some of which take aim at his ratings, even though Stewart’s late night program beats the highest rated shows on Fox News in prime time.

Like the rest of the delusional right, Breitbrat John suffers from a sort of wingnut tunnel vision that causes him to think that Stewart is a liberal mouthpiece who never employs his satire to take down Obama or other Democrats. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I previously documented, Fox has posted at least 29 articles praising Stewart’s segments that bash the President and liberals. So the schizophrenic right still manages to shovel hate-filled screeds at Stewart, even as they celebrate his satirical bipartisanship.

Breitbart Vetting Journalists 3) Their Rules, Not Ours: Time to Vet Private Lives of Journalists?
This may be the most ignorant and disturbing thing I have seen yet on Breitbart News. They are overtly threatening journalists with a campaign of slander and personal attacks on reporters who they don’t happen to like. Their razor-thin justification for such abhorrent behavior is that some reporters have published stories about ultra-wealthy Romney supporters who are trying to buy the election. Breitbrat John Nolte accuses reporters of trying to “intimidate and frighten” poor, defenseless, right-wing millionaires, so in retaliation he threatens to dig into the personal lives of journalists that have no relevancy to their work. He warns…

“What should we know about their personal lives, their finances, their personal mistakes, their traffic violations, and any run-ins with the law?”

The obvious answer is: Nothing! None of that information has any relevance to what reporters publish. If Breitbrat John has a problem with the content of an article he might try rebutting the assertions it presents. However, when you have no case to make against the substance, you attack the messenger. Nolte clearly does not have the mental acuity (or facts) to defend his positions, so he is launching a personal campaign against journalists who have a constitutional right to publish. If anyone is engaging in intimidation, it is Nolte and his fellow Breitbart thugs.

Nolte argues that the wealthy subjects of some news pieces are private citizens and exempt from scrutiny. In fact, they are openly public and taking prominent roles in bankrolling the campaigns of politicians and issues in an attempt to steer government in the direction of their conservative agenda. What could be more public than that? What’s more, the Breitbarts have no problem whatsoever attacking supporters of liberal politicians like George Soros and Bill Maher, so that just highlights their brazen hypocrisy.

To top it all off, the Breitbrats posted an item today at the top of their page (which real news organizations reserve for important stories) that features a photo of President Obama wearing colonial attire. The occasion was a 4th of July Celebration and parade where participating office-holders were requested to dress up. The Breitbrats virtually wet themselves with glee as they spun this “vetting” into some sort of expose of Obama as “The First Tea Partier.”

First of all, I think the first Tea Partiers were in Boston about 240 years ago. And they were a decidedly unruly bunch who occupied the property of the one-percenters and destroyed their private assets in a protest over the unfair control of powerful business interests.

The article accompanying the photo went to great lengths to imply that Obama was hypocritical for criticizing the Tea Party for their costumes and symbols. Except for one thing: Obama never criticized the Tea Party for their costumes or symbols. To be sure, many liberals did so, but there is a stark difference between the left’s mockery of Tea Partiers and what the Breitbrats are attempting to do here. Obama made a public appearance in costume one time at a special event that requested it. The Tea Partiers do it every weekend for no particular reason. So the complaint on the part of the Breitbrats is like complaining if someone showed up at an annual Halloween party in costume, as opposed to a pack of nuts that spend every weekend dressing up in the park.

I won’t pretend to guess what Andrew Breitbart might have thought about these matters, but I can’t imagine that anyone would be proud of the sloppy and juvenile ravings that are emanating from the web pages he used to oversee.

Dumb Question: Is The Tea Party Making Congress Dumber?

Posted by Mark NC on May 23, 2012 at 3:43 am. 6 Comments :

The Sunlight Foundation just released the results of a study that measures the scholastic grade level of speeches made by members of congress. The scale uses the Flesch-Kincaid test and is based on the length of words and sentences used. Among their findings are that…

“Congress now speaks at almost a full grade level lower than it did just seven years ago, with the most conservative members of Congress speaking on average at the lowest grade level.”

The study further found that it is the “most extreme members” who speak at the lowest grade levels, as well as the most junior. A major turning point was the election of 2010 that saw the introduction of a wave of new Tea Party Republicans to congress. Of the 20 lowest scoring members, 17 were Republicans, and twelve of those are in their first term of office. You have to go down to the 15th place before you find a Democrat.

So is this significant in any way? There are varying perspectives from which to interpret this study. On the surface it could be viewed as evidence that the intellectual capacity of the congress is declining due to the neanderthal behavior of the new Tea Party members who speak in short bursts of small words. That would be consistent with their shallow grasp of most issues and their tendency to reduce every discussion to a battle between liberty and socialism (drilling everywhere = liberty; clean air = socialism).

On the other hand, it could be said that concise expression makes communication more effective and accessible. There is an art to editing and being able to speak with an eloquent simplicity can be both more desirable and more persuasive. Advertisers know this and build their marketing campaigns on logos and slogans that communicate ideas and emotions quickly and succinctly. Political campaign managers and propagandists (but I repeat myself) know it as well.

So the fact that members of congress are speaking at lower grade levels may be an indication of either creeping ignorance or enhanced manipulation. For a specific perspective on this that may help decide which interpretation ought to prevail, let’s take a look at how Fox News characterized a similar study that also used the Flesch-Kincaid method to score President Obama’s State of the Union speech a few months ago. Their headline, declaring that Obama’s speech was written at an 8th grade level, hovered above a picture of a boy in a dunce cap:

OK then. If Fox thinks that Obama is a dunce because his State of the Union speech scored low on the test, then they must also regard all of these Tea Party representatives as dunces. And for that they have some justification. Perhaps this language analysis isn’t the perfect measure of intelligence or effectiveness in government, so let’s take a look at some of the things they’ve actually said and done and judge them on that. Here are the ten lowest scoring members in the study with some examples of the brilliance that helped them achieve this honor:

Mick Mulvaney (R-SC): Mulvaney is the co-author of the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill that has been at the center of the debate on raising the debt ceiling. The bill would impose stiff reductions, mostly to programs that fund economic growth and aid to the poor. It would also cap spending for entitlement programs and call for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Mulvaney is one of those extremists who would rather see the U.S. default on their debts and suffer a credit rating downgrade than reform the tax code to be more equitable and stop favoring the wealthy.

Rob Woodall (R-GA): Woodall once advised a constituent on Medicare that she should reject the government-provided plan and secure her health insurance on the private market. However, when asked why he refused to reject the health plan provided to him by congress he said simply, “Because it’s free.” Then, to cement the impression that he is focused solely on his own welfare and special privileges for congressmen, he was one of only two votes against the STOCK Act that prohibited members of congress from engaging in insider trading.

Rand Paul (R-KY): The son of cranky Libertarian Ron Paul, Rand is such a strong advocate of the free market that he opposes the parts of the Civil Rights Act that prohibit businesses from engaging in discrimination. He believes so firmly in personal responsibility that he wanted to let BP off the hook after their oil rig exploded killing eleven workers and flooding the gulf with toxins. He called criticism of BP “really un-American.” More recently, he said of Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, “Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer.”

Sean Duffy (R-WI): At a town hall meeting in Wisconsin, Duffy was asked whether he’d vote to cut his $174,000 congressional salary. He proceeded to whine about how $174,000 really isn’t that much: “I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage.” Sounds like he could benefit from Obama’s proposals to reform mortgage and student loan debt.

Tim Griffin (R-AR): A few years ago there was a scandal in Bush’s Justice Department when it was revealed that they fired several U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. Then, to make matters worse, they filled the vacancies with cronies and partisan patrons. One of those terminated was the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. His hand-picked replacement was a Karl Rove protege named Tim Griffin.

Todd Akin (R-MO): Last year Akin appeared on the radio program of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. That would ordinarily be enough to dismiss him as a fringe-dweller, but Akin took the opportunity to broadcast his opinion that “The heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God.” Akin was also the sponsor of a bill to prohibit courts from hearing legal challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance – an ironic attempt to unconstitutionally elevate congress over the judiciary in order to suppress “liberty and justice for all.”

Vicky Hartzler (R-MO): Like many Tea Party Republicans, Hartzler has expressed doubts about Obama’s citizenship. When questioned about the birth certificate the President released she said “You know, I have a lot of doubts about all that. But I don’t know, I haven’t seen it.” She also opposes same-sex marriage with the old slippery slope argument that associates it with polygamy and pedophilia. She asks, “Why not allow one man and two women or three women to marry? […] Why not allow a 50-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl if they love each other and they are committed?”

Tom Graves (R-GA): Graves’ obsession with limiting government is so severe that he voted against bills that would provide organizations that work with children easier access to a federal database so they could screen job applicants for criminal records. But then his grasp of legislation is somewhat faulty. With regard to funding for oil subsidies, he declared them to be a “manipulation of the market place” shortly after voting twice to extend them.

David Schweikert (R-AZ): Perhaps the poster child for this list is Rep. Schweikert who was asked a question about the health insurance mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act, and whether he thought it was fair that prior to the ACA someone could incur medical expenses but not pay for them, raising the cost of health care for everyone else. He responded that “you have the right as an American to be dumb.” And he is fully exercising his rights.

Ron Johnson (R-WI): Johnson has been a harsh critic of the government stimulus bills. But somehow that didn’t stop him from seeking stimulus funds for renovations to the Grand Opera House when he was president of the venue’s board. His explanation when asked to justify the apparent hypocrisy was that “he may have asked a question or two, but that doesn’t mean he supports the stimulus effort or even wanted the money.” Of course not. He was just curious to see if they would hand over the cash, which he would have promptly returned.

The question of whether or not a low score is indicative of low intelligence is still open. Republican pollster and word doctor Frank Luntz spins the results by contending that “It’s not an issue of dumbing it down; it’s an issue of cleaning it up.” But that interpretation only seems to be applicable for Republicans who score poorly. It’s also pure Luntzian meme surgery from the man that calls clear-cutting “healthy forests.”

These ten members of congress, who grace the bottom of the list, were rated as speaking at 7th to 8th grade levels (scoring between 7.95 and 8.62). Eight of them are 1st term Tea Partiers. Is it a coincidence that their work in office reflects the arrogance, selfishness, and resistance to compromise and teamwork that sometimes accompanies the immaturity of youth? When Fox News reported, they decided that that Obama’s low score (8.4) meant that he was a dunce. However, most of these members of congress scored even lower. So by Fox’s standard these members are even dumber, which places them squarely in the Fox audience demographic that studies have shown are more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.

Full disclosure: This article scored a 10.35 on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.

News Corpse Endorses Tea Party Candidate For Indiana Senate

Posted by Mark NC on May 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm. 1 Comments :

State treasurer Richard Mourdock is challenging veteran Dick Lugar for his senate seat in Indiana. Mourdock is a Tea Party favorite and has been endorsed by Sarah Palin. For those reasons, and the explanation below, News Corpse is jumping on the Mourdock bandwagon.

Lugar is a popular figure in Indiana across the political spectrum and would be a shoe-in for reelection in November. He is seeking his seventh term in the U.S. Senate and is the third most senior member of the body. Were he to win, and if the Republicans gained a majority, Lugar would become the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and third in line for succession to the presidency.

However, Indiana’s Republican primary voters are poised to throw all of that away on an ultra-conservative state pol with a narrow range of support from the Tea Party and right-wing SuperPACs from outside the state. He is presently beating Lugar in recent polls and has a significant financial advantage due to the wealthy PACs who are backing him like the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity.

The good news is that there are some precedents for his candidacy that point to an outcome that Democratic operatives are excited about. In 2010 there were seven candidates who defeated establishment Republicans in the GOP primaries. All seven were supported by the Tea Party (and most by Sarah Palin). And all seven lost to Democrats in the general election. Some of these seats would have gone easily to the Republican that lost in the primary, and but for that, the GOP might have been in the majority now.

The same scenario is playing out today in Indiana. It would be highly unlikely that Democrat Joe Donnelly would defeat Lugar in the general, but he is running neck and neck with Mourdock in recent polling. So a Mourdock victory on Tuesday represents the Democrats best chance to pick up a senate seat that would otherwise not be in play. And history suggests that Mourdock’s prospects are dim. Just take a look at Christine O’Donnell (DE), Joe Miller (AK), Ken Buck (CO), Linda McMahon (CT), Carl Paladino (NY), Sharron Angle (NV), and Carly Fiorina (CA).

So thanks Mr. Mourdock, and good luck on Tuesday. If you prevail in the primary you will be doing the Democrats a huge favor by opening up an opportunity they hadn’t expected. Even if you win in November, it will be better for Dems because you’ll be a junior member with no seniority and the ill will of your colleagues for having ousted their pal, Lugar.

Mitt Romney’s Campaign Slogan: We’re Not Stupid

Posted by Mark NC on May 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm. 6 Comments :

This week there has been a swirling mini-controversy surrounding the use of the word “Forward” in a new web video posted on Barack Obama’s campaign site. The Right-Wing Noise Machine sprung into action to assert that there was some sort of connection between that word and its use by socialist groups over a hundred years ago.

Of course the word has been used by innumerable organizations that sought only to convey a sense of progress and a positive vision of the future. It is the official slogan of the state of Wisconsin. It is part of the registered servicemark (Reagan Forward) of the Ronald Reagan Society at his alma mater, Eureka College. It was even used by Fox News in on-air promos that shouted “Move Forward.”

What has been ignored in this discussion is what the campaign of Mitt Romney was using for their slogan. Well, I went to his web site and found this:

So there you have it. Romney’s campaign slogan is “We’re Not Stupid.” It’s safe to say that this slogan is not in use by any other organization. How many other organizations actually need to remind their supporters that they aren’t idiots?

The Romney strategists are wisely tackling head-on a serious concern within their constituency. After all, the Tea Party is a major part of the GOP base. Remember the Tea Party? They were the ones disrupting town halls. They were the ones carrying signs that said “Keep government’s hands off my Medicare.” They were the ones who revered the intellectual prowess of Glenn Beck, Herman Cain, and Sarah Palin.

But this is no time to dwell on your flaws. This is the time to proudly display your declaration of non-stupidity. It’s a call to arms that will reverberate throughout the campaign season. Chant this slogan at your rallies. The more you say it, the more people will be forced to consider the message of your insistent affirmation. And while Obama’s supporters are mumbling their Marxist mantras about moving the nation forward, you can stay focused on the one thing that your candidate thinks should be highlighted in these troubled times.

It’s a bold strategy, to be sure. By so forcefully rejecting the stupid, Romney risks alienating one of the biggest and most reliable segments of his GOP base. But apparently the Romney campaign is convinced that it’s a worthwhile risk.

So march ~~forward~~, I mean ahead, Romneyites. And be sure to ask everyone you know, for the next six months “Are ya votin for Romney?” But don’t be surprised if all they say in response is “We’re not stupid.”

Tea Party Marine Gary Stein Lies To CNN

Posted by Mark NC on April 10, 2012 at 11:37 am. 3 Comments :

Last week Gary Stein, the Marine sergeant who runs the Facebook page Armed Forces Tea Party, was found to have violated military rules of conduct when he made hostile remarks directed at his commanders, including his commander-in-chief, President Obama. The board hearing his case ruled unanimously to recommend an “other than honorable” discharge for Stein and he is now awaiting a final decision from the base’s general.

As if he weren’t already in enough trouble, Stein appeared on CNN this morning for an interview with Soledad O’Brien where he was given the opportunity to defend his behavior. In response to a question from O’Brien, Stein somehow thought it would advance his position to blatantly lie.

Stein: First of all let’s talk about those comments. Those comments were made on a closed forum. They were up for five minutes, which we found out from testimony in the hearing. And only three people saw them. In fact the only reason anybody has a picture of those posts or knows what those posts are is because a Marine master sergeant decided that he was gonna take a screen capture and send it out to God knows who.

This is shockingly stupid on Stein’s part because the truth is so easy to verify. Stein’s assertion that the comments were made on a closed forum is rebutted by the fact that the forum is still available and is wide open for anyone on Facebook to access. His claim that the comments were up for only five minutes is rebutted by the fact that some of them, including one specifically cited by O’Brien (pictured above), are still there weeks later. And he must surely know that his comments were seen by more than three people because they have “Likes” and responses attached to them (note the 114 “Likes” and 32 responses on the image above). Finally, that image was not sent to me by a Marine master sergeant. I captured it myself on Stein’s Facebook page, and so can you.

So Stein’s remarks on CNN were entirely, and certifiably, false. That dishonesty is surely going to be apparent to anyone reviewing his case. It is startling that his attorney, sitting next to him for the whole interview, permitted him to be so brazenly deceitful on national television.

That brings us to the identity of his attorney, Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation. Kreep’s biography reveals that he was the general counsel to the racist, anti-immigration group, The Minutemen. He has been affiliated with the radical and violent anti-choice group, Operation Rescue. He was a California delegate to the Republican National Conventions in 1976 and 1980. He was also the creator of the “DefendGlenn” web site launched to counter the opposition to Glenn Beck that eventually led to his ouster from Fox News.

Most notably Kreep has been a leader of the “birther” movement that seeks to nullify Obama’s election on the grounds that he is not a U.S. citizen. Kreep has been one of the most vocal proponents of the birther myths going back to at least November 2008, when he tried to prevent California delegates to the Electoral College from casting their votes. He originally worked with birther queen, Orly Taitz, representing several clients, including Alan Keyes. He later replaced Taitz as counsel to birther litigant “Rev.” Wiley Drake. Drake is notable for publicly praying for the death of President Obama.

When a man like Drake selects you to represent him, over Orly Taitz, that is quite an endorsement. It is likewise revealing that Stein should retain Kreep out of all the lawyers available to represent him. He received help during his discharge hearing from the ACLU, and Tea Party organizers FreedomWorks are rallying support for his dubious cause. Yet the best he can do for legal representation is this Kreep (and how ’bout that tie?).

[Update] On April 25, 2012, the Marines formally discharged Stein as the commanding general of the base accepted the administrative board’s recommendation for discharge.

CNN’s Corporatist ALEC Fluffer Dana Loesch Is All In For Mussolini’s Fascism

Posted by Mark NC on April 6, 2012 at 9:31 am. 10 Comments :

The secretive and influential American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been toiling in the political shadows to advance a far-right agenda aimed at enhancing the power of corporations and suppressing the voice of the people. Their so-called “voter integrity” initiatives are thinly disguised efforts to obstruct the voting rights of minorities, students, seniors, and low income citizens. The Center for American Progress authored a study that details ALEC’s operations, it’s ties to the powerful in politics and business, and its pride in concealing its activities from the public:

“Under ALEC’s auspices, legislators, corporate representatives, and ALEC officials work together to draft model legislation. As ALEC spokesperson Michael Bowman told NPR, this system is especially effective because ‘you have legislators who will ask questions much more freely at our meetings because they are not under the eyes of the press, the eyes of the voters.’“

Recently, a campaign was launched by Color of Change and other activists to hold some of the enterprises bankrolling ALEC accountable for their support of the extremist organization. They include Altria, AT&T, ExxonMobil, Phizer, Wal-Mart, and, of course, the Koch brothers. The campaign has enjoyed some success in compelling Coca-Cola to terminate their relationship with ALEC. Pepsi, Intuit, and Kraft Foods are also severing ties with ALEC.

This citizen-driven movement is effective because free people in democratic societies are entitled to express themselves and redress their grievances with public and private institutions that have an impact on their lives. However, some rightist defenders of the ruling elite are appalled that ordinary citizens have found a way to join together and make their concerns heard. One of those is Breitbart editor Dana Loesch, who had this to say on her radio show in response to Coke’s announcement:

“Coca-Cola decided to side with an admitted Marxist, 9/11 truther, cop-killer supporter […] This is the guy whose company Coca-Cola is siding with. This is what happens. Progressives will target businesses and try to shut them down if they support those who are telling the truth. It’s a fascistic movement. Fascism is alive and well in the United States on the left.”

The alleged Marxist to whom Loesch is referring is Van Jones and her allegations are verifiably untrue. Jones is a firm believer in the ability of free markets to empower people and advance the goals of the American dream. In fact, he wrote the book on it. He never supported the 9/11 truth movement and even proved the allegation to be false. And his efforts on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal cannot be portrayed as supporting a cop-killer if the evidence shows that Abu-Jamal is innocent. Abu-Jamal’s death sentence was rescinded last year in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Also, Jones left Color of Change over two years, so Loesch’s attempt to associate him with this campaign is merely her way of trying to demonize the organization by associating it with a public figure who is hated by right-wingers because of their prior and continuing efforts to demonize him.

With everything that Loesch has gotten wrong in this affair, it is unsurprising that she also doesn’t understand political theory. Her accusations of fascism directed at a citizen effort to persuade Coke and other corporations to refrain from funding an extremist right-wing organization demonstrates her ignorance of the subject. She may want to consult the words of a man who is known to be something of an expert on fascism:

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” ~ Benito Mussolini

So Loesch is aligning herself with giant multinational corporations who are seeking with ALEC to integrate their power with that of government, while simultaneously calling those who oppose such activity fascists. If anyone can plausibly be regarded as having fascist leanings it is the American right. Their obsession with advancing the interests of corporations and wealthy oligarchs, to the detriment of the people, is closer to the fascist model than anything else in the American political spectrum. Why do you suppose that Republicans and the Tea Party are funded so heavily by corporatists like Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, and the rest of the Wall Street One Percenters? And is it just a coincidence that Mitt Romney, the GOP’s likely candidate for president, is from the same fraternity of elitists who want to decimate the government programs that benefit the poor and middle classes? Mussolini also said that fascism is revolutionary against liberalism “since it wants to reduce the size of the state to its necessary functions.” Sound familiar, Grover?

Ordinarily the twisted observations of Dana Loesch would be insignificant and harmless, but for their dimwitted asininity. Her radio show, and her work for Breitbart, are confined to the narrow world of uber-rightists who have already bought into the lies and slander of propagandists like Loesch. The problem is that Loesch is also a paid political analyst for CNN. It is wholly inappropriate for an allegedly credible news enterprise to employ someone who accuses millions of Americans of being fascists simply because they exercise their constitutional rights and participate in civic affairs.

Loesch has also accused the president of “siding with terrorists” and defended soldiers who urinated on the corpses of Afghan combatants. Now she maligns civic-minded Americans as akin to tyrants and perpetrators of torture and mass murder. Is that really the caliber of character that CNN wants to project? Unfortunately, based on the direction the network has taken the past couple of years, with the addition of people like Will Cain and Amy Holmes (of Glenn Beck’s Internet operation), and Erick Erickson (of RedState), it appears to be inescapably so.

Fox News Heralds Anti-Obama Marine

Posted by Mark NC on March 22, 2012 at 8:36 pm. 14 Comments :

Let’s face it, Fox News is unabashedly opposed to Barack Obama and everything his administration represents. The network has virtually conceded that it is nothing more than a promotional vehicle for conservative Republican politics and politicians.

Now Fox News has stepped even further across the line of objectivity by taking up the case of a Marine sergeant whose adventures in social media are blatantly disrespectful to his superiors and teeter toward insubordination or worse.

Sergeant Gary Stein is the founder of a Facebook page called “Armed Forces Tea Party.” According to reports from the Associated Press, Stein had been informed that he was in violation of Pentagon policy prohibiting political activities. The policy specifically forbids military personnel from using contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president. At first Stein cooperated with his commanders by taking down the Facebook page, but he later restored it based on his own conclusion that he was not in violation of any code. As a result, he is now the subject of an administrative action that could result in a discharge.

Stein is adamant that he is innocent of any infraction. he contends that he was exercising his free speech rights by posting messages in which he declared that he would refuse to follow any order issued by the President, his commander-in-chief, that he deemed unlawful.

“I’m completely shocked that this is happening,” Stein said. “I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve only stated what our oath states that I will defend the constitution and that I will not follow unlawful orders. If that’s a crime, what is America coming to?”

Technically, I agree with Stein on the matter of a soldier’s obligation to refuse to follow an unlawful order. That is a standard set after World War II that resulted in the inadmissibility of the defense that “I was just following orders.” But Stein had better have a damn good basis (and an opinion from a legal expert) before he engages in what might constitute mutiny. Stein had no such basis when he chose to ignore the orders of his commanders or to declare that he would refuse to follow orders from the President if those orders included detaining or disarming U.S. citizens. That overly broad standard would mean that Stein would not act against Adam Gadahn, the American who is presently the media adviser for Al Qaeda.

Stein’s story was broadcast on Fox News’ America Live with Megyn Kelly. Fox News also featured the story on both the Fox News web site and Fox Nation, where Stein has been treated as a hero for standing up to President Obama. However, he has a pretty thin case to make for his patriotism when he posts comments like this: “I say screw Obama. I will not follow orders given by him to me.” That comment has since been deleted and Stein says that he later qualified his comment to reflect that he would only disobey unlawful orders. But you can still find this comment on his Facebook page without qualification: “Obama is the “Domestic Enemy” our oath speaks about.”

That goes far beyond Stein’s assertion that he was merely stating what the military code says about following unlawful orders. It is an exhibition of overt disloyalty that the military ought not to abide. In fact, it designates the President as an enemy of the state, which would make him a suitable target, in Stein’s warped view, for hostile action or assassination. And that is exactly the view that Fox News, and their audience of pseudo-patriots, are applauding. Disgusting, isn’t it?

[Update] On April 6, a military board recommended that Stein be dismissed from service with “other than an honorable discharge” (i.e. dishonorable).

“The three-member Marine Corps administrative board at Camp Pendleton found that Sgt. Gary Stein had committed misconduct by posting anti-Obama comments on a Facebook page, calling the comments ‘contemptuous.’ […] The final decision on Stein’s status will be made by the commanding general of the Marine Corp Recruit Depot San Diego.”

[Update II] On April 25, 2012, the Marines formally discharged Stein as the commanding general of the base accepted the administrative board’s recommendation for discharge.

The Fox Effect: The Book That Terrifies Roger Ailes And Fox News

Posted by Mark NC on February 27, 2012 at 9:55 am. 4 Comments :

A new book from Media Matters was just released that chronicles the history of Fox News and explains how a small group of wealthy, politically connected conservative partisans conspired to build a pseudo-news network with the intent of advancing the right-wing agenda of the Republican Party. And that network, known for its drooling anti-liberalism, is scared spitless.

The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine, was written by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt (and others) of Media Matters. It begins by looking back at the early career of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and his role as a media consultant for Republican politicians, including former president Richard Nixon. From the start Ailes was a brash, creative proponent of the power of television to influence a mass audience. He guided the media-challenged Nixon through a treacherous new era of news and political PR, and his experiences formed the basis for what would become his life’s grand achievement: a “news” network devoted to a political party, its candidates, and its platform.

When Ailes partnered with international newspaper mogul Rupert Murdoch to launch a new 24 hour cable news channel, he was given an unprecedented measure of control to shape the network’s business and ideology. The Fox Effect examines the underpinnings of the philosophy that Ailes brought to the venture. His earliest observations exhibit an appreciation for the tabloid-style sensationalism that would become a hallmark of Fox’s reporting. Ailes summed it up in an interview in 1988 as something he called his “orchestra pit theory” of politics:

“If you have two guys on stage and one guy says ‘I have a solution to the Middle East problem,’ and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?”

That’s the sort of thinking that produced Fox’s promotion of hollering town hall protesters during the health care debate and their focus on lurid but phony issues like death panels. It is a flavor of journalism that elevates melodrama over factual discourse.

This article also appears on Alternet.org.

The book exposes how Fox was more of a participant in the news than a reporter of it. Through interviews with Fox insiders and leaked internal communications, The Fox Effect documents the depths to which the network collaborated with political partisans to invent stories with the intent of manipulating public opinion. The authors reveal memos from the Washington managing editor of Fox News, Bill Sammon, directing anchors and reporters on how to present certain subjects. For instance, he ordered them never to use the term “public option” when referring to health insurance reform. Focus group testing by Fox pollster Frank Luntz had found that the phrase “government option” left a more negative impression, and they were instructed to use that instead.

There is a chapter on the Tea Party that describes how integral Fox was to its inception and development. The network literally branded the fledgling movement as FNC Tea Parties and dispatched its top anchors to host live broadcasts from rallies. The Fox Effect also details the extensive coverage devoted to the deceitfully edited videos that brought down ACORN. Fox was instrumental in promoting the story and stirring up a public backlash that resulted in congressional investigations and loss of funding. The book followed the story from Andrew Breitbart’s new and little known BigGovernment blog to Glenn Beck’s conspiracy factory to the wall-to-wall coverage it enjoyed on Fox’s primetime. This chapter is where the authors introduce what they call “The Six Steps” that Fox employs to create national controversies:

STEP 1: Conservative activists introduce the lie.
STEP 2: Fox News devotes massive coverage to the story.
STEP 3: Fox attacks other outlets for ignoring the controversy.
STEP 4: Mainstream outlets begin reporting on the story.
STEP 5: Media critics, pundits praise Fox News’s coverage.
STEP 6: The story falls apart once the damage has been done.

This is a pattern that has played out with varying degrees of success. Fox used this blueprint to engineer the career-ending slander of presidential adviser Van Jones and Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod. But the strategy was less effective when used against Attorney General Eric Holder and Planned Parenthood, although not for lack of effort.

These, and other examples of deliberate bias, illustrate why most neutral observers regard Fox News as the PR arm of the Republican Party. The Fox Effect makes a convincing case to affirm that view and even offers admissions to that effect by Fox insiders. It is a damning exposé of how a political operative and a right-wing billionaire built a propaganda machine thinly disguised as a news network. The research and documentation are extensive and compelling.

For that reason, Fox News has mounted an unprecedented attack on Media Matters in advance of the book’s release. [Note: Actually it’s not so unprecedented. Fox set the precedent itself last year with a sustained campaign to do tangible harm by tacking an article to the top of the Fox Nation web site with a headline that read “Want to File an IRS Complaint Against Media Matters? Click Here…”] In the week prior to publication of The Fox Effect, Fox News broadcast no fewer than a dozen derogatory segments across all dayparts and on their most popular programs, including The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity, Fox & Friends, etc. It was the sort of blanket coverage usually reserved for a natural disaster, a declaration of war, or a lewd TwitPic of a politician. The attacks never contained any substantive argument or even example of error on the part of Media Matters. However, they are brimming with the most nasty form of personal invective imaginable.

The basis for the Fox News broadcasts was a series of articles by the Daily Caller (TDC), the conservative web site of Tucker Carlson, who just happens to also be on the Fox News payroll. The gist of the story, as described by TDC, is that Media Matters is manipulating news organizations, coordinating messaging with the White House, and struggling to cope with the “volatile and erratic behavior” of Brock, whom TDC alleges is mentally ill. TDC never reveals from where they got their psychiatric credentials, nor when they had an opportunity to examine and diagnose Brock. Likewise, they never reveal where they got any of the other information for the allegations they make against Media Matters as every source is anonymous.

Media analysts have universally condemned TDC’s reporting. Howard Kurtz interviewed author Vince Coglianese on CNN’s Reliable Sources and assailed the absence of any evidence to corroborate the allegations of his anonymous sources. Coglianese could not even confirm that events alleged in the article ever occurred. He laughably argued that the absence of a denial from Brock was evidence of guilt, rather than a simple disinclination to raise the profile of a poorly written article. Jack Shafer wrote for Reuters that “the Daily Caller is attacking Media Matters with bad journalism and lame propaganda.”

Media Matters was created to document conservative media bias and work to implement reforms that would produce more balanced reporting. Yet, Fox is confused by the fact that Media Matters’ research is cited by progressive organizations and publishers. The grunt work of aggregating video and other reporting is appreciated by those who use Media Matters materials. Much of it is provided without any editorializing. The right has always been fearful of any entity that would simply record their disinformation, nonsense, and hostility, and then hold them accountable for it. But they have yet to criticize NewsBusters or their parent organization, the Media Research Center, despite the cozy relationship they have with Fox News. Brit Hume, the former managing editor of Fox News, however, was abundantly grateful:

Hume: I want to say a word, however, of thanks to Brent [Bozell] and the team at the Media Research Center […] for the tremendous amount of material that the Media Research Center provided me for so many years when I was anchoring Special Report, I don’t know what we would’ve done without them. It was a daily buffet of material to work from, and we certainly made tremendous use of it.

Joining in on the assault is the Fox Nation web site that is engaged in a relentless barrage of critical articles with disturbingly insulting and hyperbolic headlines. For instance:

Is Media Matters’ David Brock A ‘Dangerous’ Man?
Were Media Matters Donors Duped?
Inside Media Matters: Founder Believed to be Regularly Using Illegal Drugs, Including Cocaine.

But even those paled in comparison to what Fox News was posting on the screen graphics that accompanied their broadcasts:

MEDIA MATTERS’ MONEY: David Brock is an admitted drug user
THE MONEY BEHIND THE MACHINE: David Brock committed to a quiet room
A LIBERAL INFLUENCE: Brock spent time in a mental ward

Note that the subjects of the broadcasts were financial in nature. Fox was reporting on TDC’s discovery that Media Matters donors were largely progressive individuals and foundations (not exactly what one would call a scoop). However, Fox News appended assertions as to the mental stability of Brock, which had nothing to do with their topic. It was merely an opportunity for them to take swipes at a perceived enemy. And this mud-slinging occurred during what Fox regards as their “news” programming, not the evening hours that they designate as the opinion portion of their schedule.

In order to cement the impression that David Brock is a mental defective, unfit to lead any organization or to be given serious consideration, Fox News brought in their resident psycho analyst, “Dr” Keith Ablow. As a part of the Fox News Medical “A” Team, Ablow appeared on the air in a segment that painted Brock as seriously disturbed and even dangerous:

“If you are filled with self-loathing you will see demons on every street corner because you project that self-hatred. […] He’s a dangerous man because having followers and waging war, as he says, or previously being a right-wing hitman, this isn’t accidental language. It’s about violence, destruction, and he feels destroyed in himself.”

This diagnosis was an invention by Ablow who has never examined Brock, or even met him. That in itself is a violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics, something Ablow does not need to concern himself with because last year he was compelled to separate himself from the APA due to ethical “differences.”

This is actually the second time Ablow has appeared on Fox News with his absurd fantasies (or projections) about Brock. And Brock isn’t his only pretend patient. A few weeks ago he published an op-ed on FoxNews.com that praised Newt Gingrich’s serial infidelity as evidence of traits that would help him to make America stronger were he president. Seriously! And who could forget his deranged psycho analysis of President Obama?

If Fox News wants to engage in “remote” psychiatry they ought to at least be fair and balanced about it. However they pointedly make no mention of the reported paranoia of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. No mention that he was cited as the reason that the NYPD provided police protection for the Fox headquarters at a cost of $500,000 a year to the people of New York. No mention of the obsessive fears described by Tim Dickinson in a Rolling Stone profile:

“Ailes is also deeply paranoid. Convinced that he has personally been targeted by Al Qaeda for assassination, he surrounds himself with an aggressive security detail and is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. […] Murdoch installed Ailes in the corner office on Fox’s second floor at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan. The location made Ailes queasy: It was close to the street, and he lived in fear that gay activists would try to attack him in retaliation over his hostility to gay rights. (In 1989, Ailes had broken up a protest of a Rudy Giuliani speech by gay activists, grabbing demonstrator by the throat and shoving him out the door.) Barricading himself behind a massive mahogany desk, Ailes insisted on having ‘bombproof glass’ installed in the windows – even going so far as to personally inspect samples of high-tech plexiglass, as though he were picking out new carpet.”

I really have to wonder if even the Fox News audience is so intellectually comatose that they wouldn’t recognize the feverish anxiety gushing from Fox in advance of the Media Matters book. A tree stump would notice that they are laying it on awfully thick. So the obvious question is what are they so afraid of? And the answer is that Fox News can no longer hide from their reputation as a dishonest purveyor of slanted propaganda and tabloid trash on behalf of a right-wing agenda and the political operatives who advance it and benefit from it.

The Fox Effect is a thoroughly documented investigation into the inner workings of both the organization and its principle managers and backers. It peels away the layers of the conservative cabal that has so effectively poisoned the public discourse on many significant issues. And like the fraudulent Wizard in the city of Oz, Fox wants us all to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Roger Ailes), or to the curtain (Fox News), or the corporation that controls it all (News Corp). And to that end Fox has embarked on a massive smear campaign to destroy the credibility of the book, its authors, and the organization that produced it. But Media Matters has already succeeded. As noted in the book’s epilogue:

“Fox News will no longer be able to conduct its campaign under the false pretense that the network is a journalistic institution. There is heightened awareness in the progressive community and in the general public of the damage Fox causes.”

And that is exactly what Fox is afraid of.

Fox News Poll: Obama Shines, Tea Party Whines

Posted by Mark NC on February 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm. 5 Comments :

There are a number of uber-conservative commentators who have arrived at the conclusion that Fox News has slithered down the rabbit hole to a Hades-flavored Wonderland of liberalism. They have convinced themselves that Fox has become as liberal as what they perceive the rest of the media to be. For example. Cliff Kincaid of the far-right Accuracy in Media sees the recent hiring of Fox contributor (and out lesbian) Sally Kohn as evidence of the network’s rightist apostasy. If that bothers him, wait until he sees this: According to a new Fox News poll…

“Barack Obama bests each of the Republican presidential candidates in hypothetical matchups. In addition, the president’s job approval rating hits its highest point in over six months.”

The poll reveals that voters prefer Obama over Romney (47-42), Paul (48-38), Santorum (50-38), and Gingrich (51-38). [Note: A Fox News poll two years ago had similar results] On questions of enthusiasm and integrity, Obama also outpolled all of the Republican hopefuls. Twice as many voters say they are “very” confident in Obama’s ability to fix the economy as say so about Romney. And a majority (61%) of voters approve of the administration’s position on requiring all employer health plans to provide coverage for contraception.

That settles it. Obviously Rupert Murdoch has either succumbed to the will of the Kenyan dictator occupying the White House, or he has converted to Islam, or he has employed a polling firm owned by George Soros. What other explanations can there be for Fox News suddenly reneging on it’s obligation to publish only GOP-friendly press releases dressed up as news?

There are some other notable findings tucked away in the internals of this poll that unveil interesting realities about the Tea Party. First of all, validating my long-held contention that there is no Tea Party (it’s just the farthest right flank of the Republican Party) is that 72% of the so-called Tea Partiers vote Republican. They are even more Republican than other Republicans. For instance on the issue of contraception coverage, Republicans oppose the administration by 57%, but Tea Partiers oppose it by 71%.

More interestingly, the Tea Party faction is a decidedly gloomy congregation. On the economy, 64% of Republicans hold the view that the worst is yet to come, but 72% of Tea Partiers are the hard core economic pessimists. And on almost every question where there was some judgment about Obama, the Tea Partiers were significantly more negative:

If Barack Obama were to be re-elected, respondents who said they would be “scared”:
Republican: 55% / Tea Party: 68%
Respondents saying that Obama doesn’t have the integrity to serve:
Republican: 66% / Tea Party: 75%
Respondents saying they are not confidant in Obama fixing the economy:
Republican: 65% / Tea Party: 76%
Respondents saying that they are not confidant in Obama preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons:
Republican: 48% / Tea Party: 63:

Perhaps the Tea Party could just be renamed the Knee-Jerk Virulently Anti-Obama Party. It is that sort of extremist, fringe positioning that has made the Tea Party anathema even to many loyal Republicans. It is why Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Linda McMahon, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck, Carly Fiorina, all bombed so miserably in the last election cycle. It’s why the GOP clown car was filled to the brim with characters like Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. And it’s why there is so little enthusiasm for their inevitable, empty suit nominee Mitt Romney

Americans are a generally optimistic bunch. They don’t have much in common with the doomsayers that populate Glenn Beck rallies. And for as long as the GOP allows such pessimism to permeate their ranks, they will be perceived as the party of despair and irrational hatred. But judging by the stump speeches of their current batch of presidential candidates, that may be exactly what they are aiming for.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: