Battlefield America: GOP Confederate Allen West Declares Civil War

Posted by on January 30, 2012 at 9:35 am. 7 Comments :

Allen West is representative from Florida’s 22 district with a unique vision of America. It’s a vision that permits only his interpretation of what constitutes American values. Stray from West’s dictatorial creed and you are not fit to be an American and must be banished. Never mind free speech and other Constitutional guarantees of liberty, it is West’s proclamation of patriotism that counts and nothing else. In that spirit West told his comrades at a Republican Party event (video below) that…

“This is a battlefield, that we must stand upon. We need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and my dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.“

In that short paragraph West has expressed a perverted view of Constitutional liberties, denied the freedom of expression to elected representatives, and asserted what amounts to a declaration of civil war. This beacon of intolerance cannot grasp the the fact that his disparagement of his perceived political enemies in Washington, extends to the millions of Americans who voted for them. He might as well be telling half the nation to get the hell out of the nation.

West is serving his first term in the House, and maybe his last if his district has any sense. His brief time in public service follows a military career that ended in disgrace after he interrogated an Iraqi police officer (who was never found to have done anything wrong) by firing a bullet just past his head. Since becoming a congressman West has made an embarrassing spectacle of himself by hiring an aide who riled up a Tea Party rally by saying that “If ballots don’t work, bullets will.” And despite his collegial reference above to his “dear friend the chairman of the Democrat National Committee,” he previously said this about her:

“You [Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz] are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives.”

West also seems to have caught Nazi Tourette’s Syndrome from Glenn Beck. He can’t seem to stop using Nazi references almost every time he stands to speak. Here’s an example that Fox News was so impressed with they featured on their Fox Nation web site:

Fox Nation - Allen West Nazi

There many more examples at the link above. This is the character of Allen West. He is a disreputable purveyor of hate and an advocate of violence and suppression of free thought. The good news is that he is also a vulnerable incumbent who is likely to be a one-term congressman. You can help to affect that outcome by supporting the CREDO SuperPAC to Take Down the Tea Party Ten. Sign the petition and make a donation today.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Retch Against the Machine: Sarah Palin vs. Stalinist Cannibals

Posted by on January 29, 2012 at 9:47 am. 7 Comments :

Now you’ve done it. Yeah you, you Republican presidential primary contenders. You’ve gone and made Sarah Palin mad. This is a day you will live to regret. After all, Palin is still the leader of a fearsome army of Facebook fanatics that worship her despite the fact that she hasn’t done a damn thing since she lost the campaign in 2008 and quit her job as governor half way through. That’s over three years as a professional slacker, leeching off of her PAC contributors and phoning in her insipid commentaries to Fox News.

Palin’s latest Facebook harangue is aimed squarely at her fellow Republicans vying for the GOP nomination. And she doesn’t like what she’s seeing. The tirade titled “Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left,” commences with a blistering assault on the lack of civility that she has always cherished:

“We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.”

Yes, the Rogue Warrior is not about to sit still for the Republican establishment, which embraced the Tea Party so tightly, and has elevated Reagan to sainthood, as they sink down to the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent. The woman who charged that her opponent was “pallin’ around with terrorists” would never behave so abysmally.

Palin invokes the sacred creed of Reagan’s “11th Commandment” which deemed that Republicans never speak ill of other Republicans. To sane outsiders that always seemed to be a call for self-censorship, but to GOP partisans it was simply an edict to coordinate their propaganda and speak with one robotically undifferentiated voice. While Palin says that she has “no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign,” she never explains how to tumble roughly in a campaign limited to reciprocal pleasantries.

Palin further asserts that she has never before seen the equivalent of this past week’s political brawl in a GOP primary race. For a woman who could not answer a question about what she reads, I suppose we can forgive her for not knowing about some famous incidents in the not-to-distant past. For instance when George H. W. Bush called Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics.” Or when his son George W. Bush spread rumors that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. Or when McCain likened Mitt Romney’s position on waterboarding to Pol Pot’s. Palin even resorts to the sort of incivility about which she is complaining in this Facebook post:

“What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.”

Stalin-esque? Palin is comparing Republican criticisms of Gingrich to a brutal dictatorship that was responsible for the deaths of millions of its own people. And she wants to lecture others about the politics of personal destruction? Then she throws in an Alinsky reference for good measure even though there is nothing in her remarks that is associated with any “tactic” advocated by Alinsky. Right-wingers just like to say his name every few minutes. Following that they like to pretend that they are anti-establishment crusaders. Palin asserts that…

“…this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party.”

The poor pitiful Tea Party is being persecuted by the big, bad GOP establishment. You know, the one that created it, funded it, and pandered to it during the last election cycle. And it’s now up to Palin to defend the Tea Partiers who are nothing more than a widely disliked, far right faction of her own party. She expanded on that whining in an appearance on the Tea Party Network (aka Fox News) where she inexplicably connected herself to the leftist punk rock band Rage Against the Machine. And her manner of raging means “vote for Gingrich.” The former members of Rage are surely retching upon hearing this.

Fox Nation

But Mama Grizzly isn’t through yet…

“[T]rust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.”

There’s Alinsky again. But more to the point, Palin is at once advocating prolonging the primary contest so that Romney’s record can be picked apart by Republican rivals, while lambasting the party for “crucifying” Gingrich. She really needs to pick an argument and stick to it. But the best part of Palin’s Facebook frenzy comes at the close:

“We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008.”

If she didn’t see it 2008 it was because she was blinded by the right. Her campaign was amongst the harshest purveyors of attacks on Obama that ran the gamut of absurd allegations casting him as a communist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, and more. But now she questions whether the GOP establishment would ever employ such harsh tactics against Obama. Furthermore, she resorts to portraying Romney as the establishment’s favorite son and even uses the phrase “chosen one.” Hmm, where have we heard that before?

Finally, in this Facebook offensive Palin helpfully admits that Fox News is not the fair and balanced news enterprise it pretends to be. She reminisces wistfully about “a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News.” I wonder if her boss, Roger Ailes, minds that she is spilling her guts about the intentional bias of the network that employs her. And I wonder if he minds that she is bashing the party that the network was created to promote.


Endorsement News: Herman Cain And Jon Voight Declare

Posted by on January 28, 2012 at 11:02 pm. 2 Comments :

The shape of the Republican campaign is getting more abstract by the day.

At a Newt Gingrich rally today in Florida, Herman Cain popped in to announce that he was “officially and enthusiastically” endorsing the former House Speaker. This was an entirely predictable event. Who else would Cain, a serial sexual harasser, endorse other than Gingrich, a serial philanderer? If Gingrich gets the nomination he could pick Cain as his running mate and be the misogynistic ticket. The Cain endorsement also produced one of the best headlines of the season in the Los Angeles Times: “Cain endorsement could boost Gingrich campaign.” Yeah, right. Gingrich said in a statement. “I’m honored to have Herman’s support, and I look forward to working with him to help put the American people back to work…” …delivering pizzas. In order to pledge his support for Gingrich, Cain must be revoking the endorsement he gave previously. He must no longer be in favor of “The People.”

Elsewhere, Angelina Jolie’s estranged and disturbed Tea Partying father, Jon Voight, gave his support to Mitt Romney. Voight praised Romney as “strong, honest and wants to bring the country back to its exceptional place where we have been for hundreds of hundreds of years, until President Obama decided to follow his father’s footsteps and take us to socialism.” Romney was actually on the stage with Voight as he delivered that lunatic screed that managed to lie about Obama and insult his dead father whom he never knew. That’s just what Romney’s campaign needs: more Glenn Beck inspired dementia to pull in the Tea Party crowd that isn’t yet convinced by Cain’s endorsement of Gingrich.

This is just too much fun, and we haven’t even gotten started yet.


Double Jeopardy: Rachal Maddow vs. Sarah Palin

Posted by on January 27, 2012 at 4:03 pm. 5 Comments :

The folks at NewsBusters think they have stumbled on the ultimate put down of one of the left’s favorite spokespersons. Last night on Jeopardy the contestants blanked out on the following question:

“This cable TV newswoman received a doctorate in politics from Oxford”

Accompanying the question was a picture of Rachel Maddow, but that still didn’t help the contestants come up with a correct response. The NewsBusters then opined that…

“This can’t possibly be great news to MSNBC execs given Maddow’s lead role in the network’s recent debate coverage.”

I’m inclined to agree. If I were an MSNBC exec I would be concerned that a panel of intelligent, well-informed players couldn’t identify the network’s star attraction. However, another star of the political universe met with the same fate last year when the Jeopardy answer was…

“Her latest book is titled ‘America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag.'”

Fox Nation - Rachel MaddowNot one of the contestants knew that the correct question was “Who is Sarah Palin.” So if it is an indication of the irrelevance of Maddow that she was unknown to the Jeopardy panel, how much worse is that Palin, who had run for Vice-President and become a regular contributor on Fox News, was also unknown in the same venue? Palin has had far more media exposure throughout the media world than Maddow, who is mostly limited to appearances on MSNBC.

Not surprisingly, the right-wing media noise machine quickly pounced on this story and regurgitated it throughout the blogosphere. Of course that included Fox News whose Fox Nation posted the item with a snarky headline reading, “Rachel Who?” But don’t bother looking for their article about Sarah Palin’s turn on Jeopardy. Fox is not about to reveal the truth about their overpaid, irrelevant leading lady.


The New GOP Base: Rich, Philandering, Terrorist Symps

Posted by on January 26, 2012 at 9:22 am. 8 Comments :

This election, like any election, is a contest of persuading targeted blocks of voters to support your candidacy. It’s a deceptively complex game of identifying groups of people with characteristics that are in harmony with the theme of your campaign and getting them to the polls.

Democrats typically solicit union members, middle-income families, senior citizens, and minorities, and attempt to cobble together a coalition. Republicans have been known to make appeals to business people, the white working class, and evangelicals. But this year there is something happening that is curious and perverse. This new development is observable in a couple of recent comments by GOP leaders and media.

Newt Gingrich, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, was asked about his his multiple affairs and marriages. He responded with a rather unique justification for why behaving like a rutting pig would make him a better candidate:

“It may make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition and challenges of life for normal people.”

Apparently Gingrich thinks that cheating on your wife, and/or wives, is “normal” and humanizing. He actually believes that his moral indecencies make him a superior candidate. And conversely, that marital fidelity exposes one’s arrogance as attempting to pass off a facade of phony perfection. By Gingrich’s ethical standards Romney would be wise to shag a BYU cheerleader if he really wants to connect with America and win the presidency.

Another peculiar comment came from Sen. Jim DeMint (Tea Party, SC). He spoke with Neil Cavuto on Fox News in response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech and the issue of tax fairness and whether the wealthy are paying their fair share:

“Well, Neil, we’ve got a challenge in America because about half the country is getting something from government, and that message is going to appeal to them. Republicans have got to appeal to the half of Americans who are paying income taxes, who are working and know better. And it’s not a matter of kind of watering down our message to appeal to those who want more from government, we’ve got to unite that part of America that understands what makes us great. It’s not going to be easy, because it sounds good to say: Let’s tax the rich.”

DeMint is suggesting that the GOP disregard the portion of the electorate that he says are not paying taxes. First of all, he is regurgitating a false argument that people who do not pay federal income taxes are not paying any taxes at all. They do, of course, pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, and state and local taxes, in amounts that raise their effective tax rates to levels comparable to the national averages. But more importantly, the “half of Americans” that DeMint is writing off are, by and large, senior citizens, students, and the working poor, because that is who generally qualify for exemptions from federal income taxes. Perhaps he’d like to tax them more to make up for the tax cuts he has given to his rich pals.

Finally, Fox News chimed in with a segment on their business network. Regular contributor Liz Trotta was called upon to offer her impressions of the State of the Union speech. What struck her was the news released after the speech about the rescue of an American held hostage by Somali pirates:

“How many times is he going to use Seal Team 6 to get out of trouble?” […] “They are becoming political operatives. I don’t trust this guy at all.”

Seriously? Trotta is appalled that the President is sending elite commando squads to save the lives of American citizens. She is implying that it would have been better if the hostages had been left to rot in the pirates’ lair. And if her indifference to the suffering of the victims weren’t bad enough, she goes on to insult the heroes who risked their lives, freed the captives, and dispensed with the terrorists.

So yesterday was a day that saw the Republican Party cast aside vast amounts of voters who are average citizens and retirees. They rejected voters who dare to be faithful to their spouses. And they insulted heroic soldiers and the patriots who support them. Consequently, it appears that the GOP has staked out a claim for the upper-class, philandering, terrorist sympathizer vote. That’s a unique campaign strategy, to say the least. And if that’s the case, I say let them have it, and good luck in November.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: Viewers Tuning Out Obama?

Posted by on January 26, 2012 at 12:14 am. 2 Comments :

OK, let’s face it. No one expected Fox News to express even the weakest praise for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Never mind that 91% of Americans who watched the speech approved of the proposals presented in it. Fox has a reputation of knee-jerk negativity to uphold, and they didn’t disappoint. Here is a selection of some of the articles posted on Fox Nation following the speech:

  • SOTU- Too Long, Too Partisan, Too Barren of Policy
  • Obama Milk Joke Bombs at SOTU
  • Opinion: Obama State of Union Proposals Evasive, Irresponsible
  • Opinion: After Three Years, It’s Time to Admit President Obama Has Failed
  • Obama Plagiarized His SOTU…from Himself

And my personal favorite: Daniels (R) Delivers Poetic Pro-American Response to Obama SOTU. This title deftly depicts Daniels nightmarish rendition of the nation’s state as “poetic,” while simultaneously implying that Obama’s speech was anti-American. If you missed it, Daniels’ poetry included recasting the poor as “soon-to-haves” (which must be a great relief to them), and quipping that Steve Jobs had a fitting name (which made me wonder if “Steve” means “Chinese” in Mandarin).

[Update] Jon Stewart’s Daily Show perfectly characterized the Daniels response:

Finally, Fox Nation posted an item that suggested that the country is tiring of the President and offered as proof the low ratings for the speech’s broadcast.

Fox Nation

The Fox Nationalists cited an article in the New York Times that noted that…

“The State of the Union address Tuesday night was seen by 37.8 million television viewers, according to figures released by the Nielsen company, by far the fewest who have watched President Obama give the address.

“The number was down from 42.8 million last year, 48 million in 2010, and 52.3 million for the president’s address to Congress during his first year in office in 2009.”

Had Fox bothered to go back just one more year, they would have discovered that George W. Bush’s last State of the Union speech was viewed by only 37.5 million people in 2008, slightly less than Obama’s speech on Tuesday. But we really can’t expect Fox to report that fact because it wouldn’t jibe with the fiction they are trying to foist on their audience.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Wall Street Journal On The GOP: If They Don’t Want To Lose, They Shouldn’t Run With Losers

Posted by on January 25, 2012 at 3:14 pm. NO Comments :

Bret Stephens, the deputy editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal, published an article this morning that begins…

“Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.“

The column is an indictment of the whole Republican field, but with an emphasis on Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Stephens is no fan of President Obama either. He leads off with a litany of laments having to do with things that Stephens says don’t matter, but conveniently leaves out any of the administration’s accomplishments. And it all leads up to this…

“Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.”

Stephens goes on to compare the GOP field to a “terminal diagnosis” and says that neither Romney nor Gingrich are fit to be a serious Republican nominee. Then he turns his animus to Republicans who declined to enter the race (Daniels, Ryan, Christie, etc.) and blames them for the loss looming in November. It’s a loss that Stephens regards as inevitable. And he is crystal clear as to what he believes is the reason that Obama is certain to be reelected:

“…the U.S. will surely survive four more years. Who knows? By then maybe Republicans will have figured out that if they don’t want to lose, they shouldn’t run with losers.”

That is uncannily close to my own analysis of the GOP race. However, I’m not a deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal. Conservatives of all stripes are bemoaning their presidential slate this year. They know that Romney is a poor representative in an election year where the wealthy 1% are considered aloof and out of touch. And Gingrich is regarded as toxic to Republican’s hopes for both the White House and their hold on the House of Representatives.

You know it may be time to pack it in when Rupert Murdoch has come out against both GOP campaign leaders:

Uh oh. Who does that leave for Murdoch to support? Santorum? Paul? Obama? Or are we headed for a brokered convention? That would be sweet. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.


U.S. Falls to 47th Place On Press Freedom Index

Posted by on January 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm. 4 Comments :

Reporters Without Borders released their annual Press Freedom Index today that ranks 179 countries for their treatment of journalists and respect for a free and independent press. There were some points of light internationally, but as their report notes:

“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous.”

The United States performed particularly poorly, dropping 27 places this year to 47th worldwide. When compared only to the 20 largest nations (by GDP), the U.S. came in at #11, behind countries like Taiwan and South Korea.

The precipitous decline was attributed to the surge in arrests of reporters at Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. There was a notable pattern of both arrests and assaults by law enforcement of journalists covering the events. Last November the Society of Professional Journalists issued a condemnation of such practices and called on…

“…city administrators across the country to drop charges against journalists arrested while covering the Occupy Wall Street and related protests.”

Josh Stearns of FreePress.net has been tracking the arrests and harassment of journalists across the country. To date he has identified 36 victims. But this list is not comprehensive. One incident that was left out involved reporters from a Fox News affiliate (of all places) in New York who were covering the protests when they were embroiled in a chaotic scuffle that resulted in the photographer getting maced and the reporter getting struck by a police baton.

This is an embarrassing development for a country whose Constitution explicitly protects freedom of the press. It indicates that we still have some work to do and that eternal vigilance is not just a figure of speech..


Laugh-Track Republicans Need Debate Audience To Tell Them What To Think

Posted by on January 24, 2012 at 11:48 am. 9 Comments :

The Republican Party has made a pariah of Hollywood, which they regard as a bastion of liberal propagandists bent on manipulating public opinion. But after the reaction to last night’s debate in Tampa, Florida, it is apparent that it is the GOP that is wedded to Tinseltown’s tactics.

Commonly known as “laugh-tracks,” the procedure used to “sweeten” the audio of television productions has conditioned audiences to rely on the cues they receive from other audience members. These emotional prompts serve to make certain the audience gets the intended message. And now the long-term effect of this technique has resulted in Republican debate audiences becoming dependent on such cues to inform them of what their own own reactions ought to be to candidates’ remarks. Absent these signals they become lost and don’t know what they are supposed to think. And this morning they are very upset about that.

As evidence of this, note some of the Twitter responses from Republican partisans to NBC’s request that the audience in Tampa refrain from interrupting the candidates with demonstrations of approval or disapproval:

Rich Lowry: if the SC debates had been like this (dull, no audience reaction), gingrich wouldnt have the SC primary

Adam Perine: wow the audience is really missing in this debate… Hurts Newt… probably intentional by NBC #FIDebate

S. E. Cupp: Wow, way to suck the air out of the room, NBC. #NoApplauseIsNoFun

Gateway Pundit: Taking the crowd out of the debate hurts Newt. Brilliant move NBC. Look for this technique in the fall. #FLDebate

Without question, most of the GOP debates thus far have allowed a raucous environment that encouraged the candidates to pander to the crowd, as opposed to articulating more substantive positions. As a result there were some notorious moments that are remembered more for their insight into the character of the GOP audience than the character of the candidates. For instance:

  • The audience gleefully cheered the mention of Rick Perry’s record-breaking number of executions.
  • The audience booed an American soldier on duty in Iraq when he asked a question about gays in the military.
  • The audience applauded when Ron Paul answered that he was content to let an ailing man die because he had no health insurance.
  • The audience went wild when Newt Gingrich evaded a question about his ex-wife’s allegations of adultery and open marriage, and instead attacked the moderator for asking the question.

Newt Gingrich has been the most aggressively solicitous candidate in the GOP field. He is adept at stirring up an audience, and he feeds off of the reactions he incites. Consequently, he is the most concerned about any effort to mute audience response. On Fox & Friends this morning, Gingrich was asked about this by host Gretchen Carlson:

Carlson: What was your reaction to last night’s debate? The audience was taken out of it and up until this point, the audience has been your fan.

Gingrich: I wish in retrospect I’d protested because Brian Williams took them out of it. I think it’s wrong. And I think he took them out of it because the media’s terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate. And we’re gonna serve notice on future debates, we’re not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong.

The fact that Gingrich sees the Republican primary debates as a contest between the candidates and the media, rather than the candidates themselves, is telling. The media is an easy target as it has an approval rating with the American people that is almost as low as the congress from which Gingrich emerged. No wonder he would rather debate the media than his GOP opponents. Gingrich is, in effect, admitting that he wants to use the debate audience as a weapon to advance his candidacy.

It will be interesting to see if Gingrich is successful in getting the debate sponsors to comply with his self-serving demand. Needless to say, it would be utterly irresponsible for the press to buckle under to such bullying tactics. There may be reasons, pro and con, for permitting the audience to be openly demonstrative, but it should always be a decision based on journalistic principles, not candidate preferences.

What’s more, the press should not be taking sides in the debate over whether debate audiences should be heard. But, of course, Fox News has already done just that. They have already published at least two stories that slant in favor of Gingrich’s position.

Fox Nation - NBC Debate

As an aside, audience response is also a factor during State of the Union addresses. One of the most annoying parts of these affairs is the constant interruptions and fidgeting by members of congress that can’t stay in their seats for more than two minutes. I wish that Brian Williams could drop by and tell them to sit still and listen respectfully until the speech tonight is completed.

[Update] Mitt Romney appeared on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning and affirmed my point about the media being an easy target and Gingrich’s exploitation of that fact:

“It’s very easy to talk down a moderator. The moderator asks a question and then has to sit by and take whatever you send to them. And Speaker Gingrich has been wonderful at attacking the moderators and attacking the media. That’s always a very favorite response for the home crowd. But it’s very different to have candidates going against candidates, and that’s something I’ll be doing going against President Obama if I get the chance to be our nominee.”


Fox News Adopts Newt Gingrich’s Alinsky Rhetoric

Posted by on January 23, 2012 at 3:40 pm. 3 Comments :

At today’s White House press briefing a question was asked that illustrates the press corps’ dedication to the news that America cares about most:

Fox Nation - Alinsky

The question that pushed this item to the top of Fox Nation was asked by none other than Fox News White House correspondent, Ed Henry. So what we have here is a Fox News reporter being featured on a Fox News web site for asking an ignorant question that nobody cares about. Here is the actual transcript:

Henry: I wonder if you could clear something up. Newt Gingrich keeps saying on the campaign trail that the President’s vision comes from Saul Alinsky, the community organizer. I haven’t heard you asked about that but I was wondering … Is there some kind of portrait of him in the White House that people look up to or is this BS?

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary: Have I said how much fun I had as a reporter covering Congress from 1996 to 1998? There was a certain bombast to it at the time. A lot of colorful things to cover.

The President’s background as a community organizer is well documented in the President’s own books. His experience in that field obviously contributed to who he is today. But his experience is a broad-based one that includes a lot of other areas in his life. So I’ll just leave it at that.

Perhaps the reason that Henry has not heard Carney asked about an Alinsky portrait in the White House is that no one else would ask such a stupid question. This is an obvious attempt to legitimize the wing-nut rhetoric of Newt Gingrich (which he picked up from Glenn Beck). Gingrich has taken to disparaging President Obama as a European socialist and Alinsky radical in order to suck up to the Tea Party dimwits who are still suffering withdrawal symptoms since Beck was booted off of Fox News.

In fact, it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between Gingrich and Beck. A couple of years ago Gingrich was pontificating on Obama as a “Kenyan anti-colonialist” who only became president as the result of “a wonderful con.” And he featured the same subject matter in his South Carolina victory speech. Not that Romney is any better. In a 2008 campaign ad he actually preceded Beck’s insane fear-mongering of an Islamic caliphate bent on taking over the world.

The GOP candidates are desperately trying to leapfrog each other to see who can spew the most ludicrous right-wingisms, and Fox News is valiantly stepping forward to prop up their lunatic pandering. Too bad Fox can’t even accomplish that act without misspelling the name of their designated demon (Alinksky?). And their transcript of the exchange between Henry and Carney erroneously quoted Carney as saying “[Obama]’s experiences abroad also included alot of other areas in his life.” What Carney actually said was that “[Obama]’s experience is a broad-based one that includes a lot of other areas in his life.” I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Fox’s mistaken version fits nicely into the Birther fantasy that Obama is a foreigner.

The more Fox News and their inbred candidates focus on irrelevancies like Alinsky, the more cheering can heard from the White House. Not because they have succeeded in concealing from the nation their secret plot to invoke Sharia law, but because they know that the American people are more concerned about jobs, income inequality, and the sort of real national security that brought about the demise of Osama Bin Laden and an end to the war in Iraq. Most Americans have no idea who Saul Alinsky is, nor could they define socialism (much less Kenyan anti-colonialism). So if these are the themes of the Republican campaign in 2012, the Democrats can rest easy as they cruise to a landslide victory in November.