S.E. Cupp Thanks Hustler For Publishing Obscene Photoshopped Picture

Posted by on May 24, 2012 at 5:38 am. 10 Comments :

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”
~ Oscar Wilde

This month’s Hustler Magazine is reported to have published an altered photo of Glenn Beck’s GBTV host, S.E. Cupp. The fake picture is an obscene and repulsive depiction of Cupp that is an insult to her and all women, particularly professional commentators who put themselves in the public view by expressing their opinions. The exercise of constitutional rights ought not to be an invitation to engage in profane humiliation.

S.E. Cupp in Hustler

That said, it didn’t take long for a chorus of right-wing opportunists to embrace this repugnant graphic for political gain. There was an immediate rush to associate Hustler’s Larry Flint with Democrats and to compare his literal pornography to the figurative porn of Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives from all quarters began demanding that every progressive women’s organization issue a public condemnation of Flint.


There is, however, a chasm of difference between Flint’s obscenity and Limbaugh’s vulgar characterization of law student Sandra Fluke. Flint is fringe purveyor of pornography who does not lead an army of disciples in a political war. Limbaugh, on the other hand, is a hugely popular rightist icon who commands the attention of his loyal followers and much of the media. It is precisely because of Limbaugh’s success and popular acceptance that his contemptuous incivility be challenged. And it is precisely because of Flint’s aberrant irrelevancy that he can be largely ignored. Flint is a notorious manufacturer of outrage, but when was the last time anyone ever paid close enough attention to him to demand an apology or retraction?

The response from the right to this affair is as fake as the photo in Hustler, and nearly as distasteful. Their unambiguous aim is to cast aspersions on liberals as being responsible for, or aligned with, Flint’s depravity. And leading the pack is Glenn Beck, who so often considers himself the victim of abuse. On his webcast today he interviewed Cupp and conflated this episode with both Limbaugh’s assault on Fluke and, shockingly, the Trayvon Martin shooting. He thinks there is some reason for the National Organization for Women and President Obama to lower themselves to respond to Flint. That would be like asking Mitt Romney to take a position on something said by NAMBLA. For her part, Cupp seemed oddly appreciative in this exchange with Beck:

Cupp: If I could just express a little gratitude for Hustler – and I’m being completely serious here – There is an accompanying sidebar to this story and why they did this to me. And in that paragraph they say it’s because she’s lovely, she’s smart, she’s fine, but she happens to be a crazy conservative, she’s pro-life, and wants to defund Planned Parenthood. And for that she deserves a phallus in her mouth. That is essentially what they’re saying and I have to commend that as being incredibly honest. […] So I wish that the media entities that perform this kind of misogyny would just come out and do what Hustler did instead of just beating around the bush and pretending to be fair, pretending to be above that.

Beck: So may I translate? I think what I’m hearing you say – correct me if I’m wrong – is that Hustler Magazine has higher standards than the media and the National Organization of Women.

Cupp: That’s exactly right. They are more straight forward. They have uncomplicated this belief system, which exists on the left and the right, that my being pro-life, my political views make this OK. It justifies it and I, essentially, deserve it. That is honesty on this issue I have never seen before.

Really? That’s a pretty clear indication that Cupp is actually thankful for the publicity she’s receiving. It is evidence that she is not really disturbed by any of this, but rather is encouraging others in the media to “do what Hustler did.” And both she and Beck seem happy to have this spotlight so that they can turn it on NOW and unnamed persons in the press. That’s just brazenly cynical and dishonest, and it exposes their disingenuousness and their desire only to exploit this as a partisan weapon against their ideological foes.

For the record, some of those whom the right are castigating for not speaking out about this have already spoken out about this. Sandra Fluke, Planned Parenthood, Fox Democrat Jehmu Greene, the Women’s Media Center, and others have Tweeted their disapproval. However, I hope this doesn’t devolve into a parade of forced condemnations from high officials. It serves no purpose for people of integrity to mud wrestle with the likes of Larry Flint. It should suffice that all thoughtful, conscientious people affirm that women be treated with respect. It would be nice if conservatives held that position even when it involves liberal and/or Democratic women like Fluke, Hillary Clinton, and Michele Obama.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation vs. Reality: Bashing Bush

Posted by on May 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm. 3 Comments :

Fox Nation can now add hypersensitivity to its list of psychoses. In their coverage of President Obama’s speech today at the Air Force Academy, the Fox Nationalists spotted an insult aimed at Obama’s predecessor, hidden deeply in the President’s remarks. Can you spot it?

Fox Nation

President Obama told Air Force Academy cadets Wednesday America was stronger and more respected around the world than ever before despite impending cuts to the nation’s armed forces. The president delivered the commencement address to over 1,000 graduates at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo. “Around the world there is a new feeling about America,” he told cadets. “There is a new confidence in our leadership.

“Today I think we can say with pride that America is stronger and safer and more respected in the world,” Obama added. He noted the class of 2012 would be the first to “graduate into a world where no Americans are fighting in Iraq and where Usama bin Laden is no longer a threat to our country.”

~ From Fox Nation via the New York Post (hence the snippy reference to “impending cuts”).

So Obama delivers a speech that celebrates the graduating class of the Air Force Academy with a stirring affirmation of America’s greatness. It was a speech that spoke explicitly of American exceptionalism (which right-wingers like to pretend Obama never mentions) and the durability of our governing philosophy and our spirit. It was a speech that every president has given, at one time or another, that pays tribute to an America that is always better than it was, with hope and confidence that it will be better yet in the future.

And in that positive, forward looking message, the Fox Nationalists found an insult to George W. Bush. In case you missed it, let me spell it out. The ultra-irritable little hotheads at Fox think that any proclamation of evolving goodness is a curse directed at what came before. That would mean that any president who has the temerity to suggest that our nation ever improves – that we have the ability to learn and grow – is mercilessly offending his predecessors.

That’s an attitude that defines conservatism. They are intrinsically averse to progress, hence their aversion to progressives. They hate it so much that they can’t even stand the thought that America might find ways to refine and enhance its abundant gifts. To them we must wallow in the sameness of whatever status quo we find ourselves in. Or worse, we must revert to prior eras for which conservatives have blind reverence. And it doesn’t matter to them if that past includes abhorrent intolerances that we have thankfully outgrown.

Whatever you do, do not aspire for more than those who came before you. Because, according to the Fox martinets of virtue, that would be an insult to your predecessors. Stay the same as you are forever. Progress is sin.


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

Posted by 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 SAT1) 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/Stewart2) 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 Journalists3) 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.”

Breitbart - Obama 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 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:

Fox Nation

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.


Most Hysterical Headline Of The Year: Palin Pulverizes Obama

Posted by on May 22, 2012 at 4:42 am. 18 Comments :

I know it’s only May, but this is going to be tough to beat:

Fox Nation

How anyone could take seriously the notion that Sarah Palin would provide any intellectual competition for President Obama is utterly unfathomable. This is the woman who thinks that a “gotcha” question is “What newspapers do you read?” This is the woman who thought that Africa was a country. This is the woman who thinks the vice-president is in charge of the Senate. And now Fox thinks that her nearly incoherent rambling on Sean Hannity’s program represents some sort of victory – and not just a victory, but a pulverization.

Fox Nation is fond of overextending itself with puerile hyperbole, but this is so far removed from reality that the guys with butterfly nets must not be far behind. The subject of the discussion was Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s remarks criticizing Obama for attacking Mitt Romney on his business resume, and specifically on Bain Capital. Booker was wrong on the substance of his criticism and went completely out of bounds when he conflated the right-wing’s obsession over Jeremiah Wright with the legitimate criticisms of Romney’s tenure at Bain. Booker later clarified what he meant and reiterated his support for Obama. Ignoring that, Palin referenced Booker as well as Democrats Harold Ford and Steve Rattner in an attempt to suggest that they were anti-Obama. She said…

“His surrogates there come from, in many respects the private sector, and each one of those individuals does have a lot of private sector experience, unlike their leader Barack Obama.”

Well, it was nice of her to praise these surrogates so highly. Indeed, they do have a lot of private sector experience. And what’s more, they all endorse Obama for reelection. So if we are to accept Palin’s commentary that these are intelligent, experienced people with insight into business and economics, then we should, therefore, be sure to vote for Obama in November.

Thanks for your support, Sarah. And thanks for a pulverizing so thorough that it whipped back around and transformed into an endorsement. Seriously, after seeing this I have to wonder if Palin would even know what pulverize means. Clearly the editors at Fox Nation don’t.


Desperate Fox Nationalists Launch ‘Obama Regime’ Meme

Posted by on May 21, 2012 at 11:10 am. 10 Comments :

In a textbook example of a biased media enterprise succumbing to desperation, the Fox Nation has taken to employing highly charged words that insinuate evil intent on the part of President Obama and the executive branch of the United States government. When referencing the Obama administration the Fox Nationalists are routinely calling it the “Obama Regime.”

Fox Nation Obama Regime

The word “regime” is generally reserved for dictators and totalitarian governments (i.e. fascist regime). It’s a characterization that will surely resonate with the low-information, wingnut audience at Fox who are freaked out by imaginary communists and are rooting for the apocalypse. But the term is egregiously out of place when referring to the democratically elected president of the United States whose powers are balanced by two other equal branches of government.

Fox Nation routinely inserts negative bias into their articles, but this overtly distorted and disparaging rhetoric is illustrative of their determination to brainwash their dimwitted readers. Rather than exhibiting any confidence that their message could prevail in a fair discussion, Fox resorts to putting their readers on a leash and leading them to the conclusions that Fox preordains. It’s evidence of their belief that both their arguments and their audience are irreparably weak.

While the remedial editors at Fox think they are cleverly influencing the public, they are actually just insulting their base. Granted, they have good cause to conclude that Fox fans are easily manipulated and swayed by false reporting, it is still a sign of the desperation on the right that they would resort to this transparent tactic. And it is not unexpected from the pathetically immature editors at Fox who regularly engage in name-calling in their headlines. It’s no wonder that Fox closely guards the identity of the Fox Nation editorial staff. They must be terribly embarrassed to be associated with this juvenile garbage.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Romney Backers Say: Do The Wright Thing

Posted by on May 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm. 1 Comments :

The pro-Romney SuperPAC that had proposed a $10 million campaign reprising the battle over President Obama’s association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is now distancing itself from the plan. Mitt Romney personally made a statement on the proposal saying “I want to make it very clear: I repudiate that effort. I think it’s the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign.” But that hasn’t stopped the extremist regulars of the GOP from continuing to advocate for hammering on Obama with the four year old Wright story.

Do The Wright Thing

Fox Anchor Chris Wallace: As far as Rev. Wright is concerned, I think it had a lot of relevance, and I think McCain was crazy not to bring it up.

Radio Talker Mark Levin: Why would you take any issue off the table, particularly issues that give us a look into this man’s character?

Fox Anchor Sean Hannity: I believe that the president’s relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man that influenced him for over 20 years, inspired him, is a very important campaign issue.

Fox Host Kimberly Guilfoyle: I don’t think [rejecting the Wright issue] is the right thing to do. I think he should try to get after it.

Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft: [Rejecting the Wright issue] is certainly disappointing.

Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff: I think there may be value in talking about the Obama-Wright connection.

National Review’s Michael Walsh: Even by Stupid Party standards, [tabling Wright] was an impressive display of preemptive surrender.

Fox Contributor Charles Krauthammer: [I]n principle, if you want to [bring up Wright], it would be completely legitimate.

Herman Cain: I think it is fair if someone wants to highlight the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his relationship with Barack Obama because, quite frankly, it wasn’t highlighted enough in 2008 when he was running for president the first time.

I’m not sure where Cain was in 2008, but he obviously wasn’t paying any attention to the presidential race. According to the PEW Research Center, the controversy generated by Wright “made more news than both Hillary Clinton and John McCain” in the spring of 2008 at the height of the presidential primaries. By summer PEW’s analysis showed that…

“The story-line or event that has received the most coverage so far is Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which accounted for 6% of all stories and dwarfed all of the other episodes or storyline of the campaign that didn’t have to do with the horse race itself.”

From Fox News anchors to former GOP presidential candidates, the far-right is drooling at the prospect of reigniting the Wright controversy. Many are infuriated that Romney will not “stand up” and take a more aggressive stance. They are reminded of what they regard as the impotent strategy of John McCain in 2008. And many have a point when they note that Romney was brutally negative in his campaign for the GOP nomination against his fellow Republicans, but now presents himself as a more sensitive candidate who eschews negative attacks when it comes to Obama.

Romney is currently enjoying the benefit of this debate and the renewed focus on Wright, while getting to wash his hands of any of it by virtue of his statement of repudiation. But in the end in will scare off the moderate voters that he needs to win, so I can’t help but get excited about seeing the ads these yokels will produce.


Breitbart Birther Exclusive: Obama Born In Kenya – Or Not

Posted by on May 17, 2012 at 5:34 pm. 36 Comments :

The kids at Breitbart News, or as I call them, the Breitbrats, are giddily wallowing in their “exclusive” discovery of “evidence” that President Barack Obama is indeed a secret Kenyan usurper to the American presidency.

Breitbart News

That’s right. Now it finally comes out. “Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya'” This is front page news at the Breitbrat site. And why not? It proves that the President is an illegitimate occupier of the White House. Maybe now the Breitbart Tea Partiers can revoke health care and make all the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent while expanding offshore oil drilling and outlawing abortion and gays.

Except that, for some reason, the article heralding this monumental news is prefaced by an editorial disclaimer saying…

“Andrew Breitbart was never a ‘Birther,’ and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’ In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.”

Hmmm. That sort of contradicts the whole point of the article. Or rather, the article contradicts the whole point of the disclaimer. Either way, it reflects the amateurish efforts of the Breitbrats as they endeavor to smear Obama regardless of whether their assertions make any sense.

The article by Joel Pollak is an unfocused rambling of accusations that lead nowhere. He aimlessly recites the content of a pamphlet that is promoting the clients of a literary agency that includes a young Barack Obama, and he bores readers with his description of the typography, as if it had some special significance. Then he seeks to impress with his questions directed at individuals associated with the agency, except that he doesn’t get any actual answers. And all the while he insists that his examination of the evidence that Obama is Kenyan isn’t really an attempt to suggest that Obama is Kenyan.

Perhaps even worse is a follow up article by Breitbrat John Nolte who begins his harangue by stating that…

“Never once have I doubted that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There’s no way in the world that little constitutional issue would ever have got past the Clintons during the 2008 Democratic primary. Now that we’re clear on that…”

So the only reason he discounts the claims that Obama is not an American is that Bill and Hillary would have told him if it were true. He does not discount them because they are demonstrably false and that documentary evidence is readily available. The big problem, as Nolte defines it, is “the abject failure of the mainstream media to vet” Obama, and this clipping from a twenty year old pamphlet is proof of that even though he denies that the pamphlet proves anything. Still, Nolte considers the existence of this pamphlet as proof that the media has fallen down on its duty to investigate the President.

Let’s look at that claim a little closer. Nolte is saying that the media failed because they didn’t discover and report on a pamphlet that Nolte concedes means nothing. So according to Nolte, in order for the media to have done their job properly, they should have published this story about a meaningless blurb in an old pamphlet that has zero significance to Obama’s identity. Seriously. Nolte goes on to ask “what will the humiliated media do?” But I still can’t figure out how they were humiliated if the pamphlet, by Nolte’s own reckoning, is not indicative of anything.

Not to be deterred, Nolte insists that “there are plenty of follow-up stories here; plenty of questions to ask and reporting to do.” But the only questions he suggests are “If it wasn’t a mistake, let’s ask why. If it was a mistake, let’s ask how.” But he just finished making repeated assertions that it was a mistake and that he is certain that Obama is an American citizen born in Hawaii. That leaves the only question to be how the mistake was made. I think the answer to that would be “Who cares?” It was just a mistake. And the media cannot be regarded as irresponsible for not reporting that a mistake was made twenty years ago on a promotional pamphlet that was never distributed to the public.

Nolte and Pollak need to make up their twisted little minds as to whether this is a trivial error that in no way reflects on the President’s lineage, or it is proof that the Birther conspiracy has been revealed. And via their repeated declarations, they obviously believe that Obama was born in Hawaii and, therefore, this pamphlet has no news value and the media are blameless for not harping on it – the way the Breitbrats are.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

For the record, a real journalist actually did what journalists do and contacted the person responsible for the pamphlet. Taegan Goddard then reported that Miriam Goderich, of the literary agency that produced the pamphlet, issued the following statement to Political Wire:

“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

Case closed. Except for all the hysteria that still embroils the infected brains at Breitbart News and their fellows in the Birther community. And the ghost of Andrew Breitbart rolls his eyes.


Pro-Romney SuperPAC Calls Obama A Metrosexual Black Abe Lincoln

Posted by on May 17, 2012 at 12:06 pm. 8 Comments :

I can hardly wait for this ad to hit the air. Joe Ricketts, A pro-Romney billionaire, is considering a new political attack on President Obama centered on his past association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The campaign would be funded by $10 million of Ricketts fortune and produced by his SuperPAC, Ending Spending Action Fund.

In a document obtained by the New York Times, the group of “high-profile Republican strategists” is planning on revealing Wright’s “influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way.” Finally! The secret story of Rev. Wright that was suppressed by the liberal media four years ago will be exposed to a nation that has never heard of him and his power over our puppet-like president. Never mind the fact that according to the PEW Research Center, the controversy generated by Wright “made more news than both Hillary Clinton and John McCain” in the spring of 2008 at the height of the presidential primaries. By summer PEW’s analysis showed that…

“The story-line or event that has received the most coverage so far is Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which accounted for 6% of all stories and dwarfed all of the other episodes or storyline of the campaign that didn’t have to do with the horse race itself.”

Metrosexual Abe LincolnNow Romney’s wealthy backers have determined that America was deprived of this highly pertinent information and they are promising to reach back to the past and dredge it all up again. The twist that they are proposing is to racialize this attack even more than previous attempts. The proposal refers to Obama as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln” (whatever that is), and in order to to respond to any charges of racism, they plan to hire as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American.” I wonder if that’s anything like the IWSB (intelligent, well-socialized black) that noted racist John Derbyshire aspired to befriend.

The Romney campaign has issued a rather tepid response that merely stated their intention to focus on economic issues. That is in sharp contrast to the McCain campaign that decisively rejected these sort of character attacks, although some on his campaign (i.e. Sarah Palin) advocated for them. One of the strategists for the pro-Romney PAC, Fred Davis, is a former McCain adviser who pushed for more emphasis on Wright, but was shot down by McCain. Davis is also the genius behind the inadvertently hilarious “Demon Sheep” ad that so embarrassed Carly Fiorina in 2010.

The purpose of this project is clear. The extremists behind it have determined that they can’t beat Obama as long as he is regarded so favorably by a majority of the public. They note in their proposal that Americans “still aren’t ready to hate this president,” so they have taken it upon themselves to manufacture reasons to do so. It is a cynical and divisive strategy that concedes that Romney is so unlikeable that there is no positive argument to make for voting for him.

It didn’t work in 2008, and there is no rational reason to expect that it would work now. It would only serve to further embarrass those associated with such a repugnant effort to smear a president who is popular and well-liked. And that’s why I can’t wait see them follow through. Although there is already speculation that they are chickening out due to the publicity they are receiving. Too bad. But I have great confidence they’ll come up with something just as embarrassing before long. It’s what they do best.

[Update] Romney is now “repudiating” the Ricketts plan. However, his surrogates on the right are going all out in pushing the Rev. Wright theme. Sean Hannity is featuring the disreputable author Ed Klein on his program to discuss Wright. Glenn Beck has offered Wright $150,000 to tell him “the truth” about Obama. So Romney has merely stepped aside to let his comrades mount the attack.


Obama Surging Ahead Of Romney In Fox News Poll That Fox News Ignores

Posted by on May 17, 2012 at 3:35 am. 12 Comments :

For additional evidence that Fox News is the PR agency for the Republican Party, note the feverishly excited treatment that Fox News gives to polling when the results favor Mitt Romney:

Fox Nation Polls

In the past two months Fox Nation has posted at least seven articles on election polling and every single one of them reported the results of polls that put Romney in the lead over President Obama. There were, of course, polls that had Obama leading, but the “fair and balanced” Fox Nationalists didn’t bother to report on those. Here are a few of the headlines from just April and May of this year:

  • Rasmussen Poll: Romney 50%, Obama 42%
  • Poll: Romney Beating Obama Among Women Voters
  • Poll: Romney Up Double Digits With Swing State Independents
  • NBC-WSJ poll: On economy, Romney Opens Up Lead Over Obama
  • Rasmussen Poll: Romney 48%, Obama 44%
  • Fox News Poll: Romney Edges Obama as Approval of President Drops
  • Two National Polls Show Favor For Romney

What makes this particularly interesting is that Fox News just released its own poll that showed the President pulling away from Romney. Obama leads in the Fox poll by 46% to 39%. But there was no mention of it on Fox Nation, and barely a mention of it on Fox News. So even when the poll was commissioned and paid for by Fox they bury the results if it looks good for Obama.

And it looks pretty darn good for Obama. Other results include a widening gender gap with women supporting Obama 55% to Romney’s 33%. Obama voters are far more satisfied with their candidate (74%) than are the Romney voters (59%) with theirs. That disparity could be because Obama’s supporters are backing him due to his job performance and positions (38%). Only 11% say they support him because “he isn’t Romney.” On the other hand, 43% of Romney’s supporters say they back him because “he isn’t Obama.” That sort of negative incentive from the Republicans often translates into low voter turnout.

There can be only one reason that Fox would so blatantly suppress these poll results. They obviously don’t want the public to be informed of the broad-based positive impression of the President that exists in the country. They have no problem publishing negative information about Obama. In just the past two days Fox published two stories that portrayed the Obama camp as worried about their allegedly dismal prospects. One article said that “Alarm Grows Among Dems About Obama’s Chances.” The other declared that “Team Obama Panics, and It’s Only May.” Both of those articles were analyses of recent election polls. But now that Fox’s own poll paints an entirely different picture, there is no corresponding article about how the Obama team is celebrating or how the Romney camp is panicking.

This is the way a public relations firm behaves on behalf of their client. And that is the best description of the relationship between Fox News and the Republican Party. It is 24/7 spin for GOP interests. And they aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. When Steve Doocy on Fox & Friends introduced a segment on the Fox poll, he comforted the Fox viewers, before giving them the news that Obama was out in front, by inserting this little ray of hope, “If the election were held today – don’t worry they aren’t going to be…” Wasn’t it thoughtful of Doocy to be so concerned about the worries of the Fox audience?