Dumb Question: Is The Tea Party Making Congress Dumber?

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.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Most Hysterical Headline Of The Year: Palin Pulverizes Obama

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

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.


Romney Backers Say: Do The Wright Thing

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

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

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.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

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

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?


Fox Nation: The Virtual Book Tour For Right-Wing Hacks

What kind of a news enterprise would promote an author with a record of outrageous lies, uncorroborated allegations, and a stream of denouncements from across the political spectrum?

Look no further than the online community for Fox News that is published by a super-secret cabal that refuses to identify their editors: Fox Nation.

The author in this case is Edward Klein. He has spewed more delusional conspiracies and slanderous insults than anyone this side of Glenn Beck. He has called Hillary Clinton a lesbian, Bill Clinton a rapist, and, of course, Obama a Muslim usurper from Kenya. His previous works have been blasted by staunch conservatives like Kathleen Parker, John Podhoretz, and Peggy Noonan, whose Wall Street Journal review described his book as “poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced and full of the kind of loaded language that is appropriate to a polemic but not an investigative work.”

However, in the past few days the Fox Nationalists have posted six separate stories based on allegations from Klein’s new book. None of the allegations have been affirmed by any independent source, but they are repeated at Fox Nation as if they were facts. Here is the recent rundown of the phony articles:

Fox Nation

When was the last time Fox Nation featured six stories from any other single source? But now they have posted six articles all based on the same book by a notably disreputable character. That’s a pretty generous contribution of free PR for a marginal author and an untrustworthy collection of hearsay. There are only two reasons why the Fox Nationalists would go to these lengths.

1) The slander proffered by Klein achieves the primary goal of everything on Fox: disparage President Obama. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or even plausible. Just shout as loudly and as often as possible the most asinine garbage you can think of and you’re liable to get your book promoted by Fox.

2) Fox Nation is wholly unaccountable for their ranting. They do not publish the identities of any of their editorial or administrative personnel. No one can be held responsible or asked to justify their work product. That’s convenient because so much of what appears on Fox Nation is so childish and embarrassing that no one would want to take credit (or blame) for it anyway. It is highly unusual for a legitimate news organization to keep their editorial team secret. Fox Nation is the only one I can think of who does so, but then they have an excuse – they are not a legitimate news organization.

In this election season we can expect to see more of this. There will be other books by sleazeballs like Klein that will get the same treatment on Fox and other right-wing media platforms. These people are not concerned with journalism. They are focused only on negative propaganda. And for that you don’t need credentials or that pesky detail that honest journalists call truth. Fox News has perfected the promotion of this dreck, and they will surely continue to lead the way.


James O’Keefe Produces Another Embarrassing Flop

James O'KeefeThe Borat of right-wing pseudo-journalism has just released the latest in his attempts to so thoroughly discredit himself that his mother would be ashamed to take his calls. James O’Keefe, a convicted criminal, has been trying to prove that voter fraud in America is at crisis proportions. But the only thing he has succeeded in proving is that he himself is a recidivist perpetrator of attempted fraud that ultimately fails. And he has never rebutted the studies that show that voter fraud is almost non-existent in this country.

O’Keefe’s latest insipidness is a video that purports to show that non-citizens are voting in North Carolina elections. His evidence is a non-citizen named Zbigniew Gorzkowski. The only problem, as ThinkProgess discovered, is that Gorzkowski is, in fact, a citizen and has been for about thirty years. When O’Keefe’s henchman tried to ambush Gorzkowski, he immediately smelled the deceit and repeatedly asked the henchman who he was representing. O’Keefe’s henchman not only evaded the question, at one point he blatantly lied, misrepresenting himself as being associated with an “agency” that implies some official authority.

James O'Keefe

This is the sort of willful dishonesty that is the hallmark of O’Keefe’s dubious career. His videos, this one included, are a jumble of deliberately deceptive scenes that have been edited to give false and negative impressions of O’Keefe’s victims. That’s why he pleaded guilty to crimes committed in Louisiana. It’s why he is being sued by former ACORN employees. And if that’s not enough, he has also been implicated in sexual harassment and potentially kidnapping and drugging a former female associate.

Any news enterprise that gives O’Keefe any attention to his ludicrous videos is demonstrating their own lack of credibility. That’s why the only place you can expect to see this garbage is on Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller and the late Andrew Breitbart’s sites. But it is still curious that there have no prosecutions of O’Keefe for the crimes he has committed in various jurisdictions while attempting to prove voter fraud. Investigations are progressing, but there is ample evidence to proceed at this point. And his probation officer should be looking into whether he is in violation of the terms of his probation by continuing to commit illegal acts.

James O’Keefe is behaving like a criminal and belongs in jail – the sooner the better.

[Update] ThinkProgress has confirmed that the other person identified as a non-citizen in O’Keefe’s video is also a citizen. So that’s two citizens about whom O’Keefe lied and perhaps libeled.


Bill O’Reilly Accuses Obama Of Political Terrorism

Now that Glenn Beck has left Fox News and slithered off to the obscurity he so richly deserves, Bill O’Reilly is stepping up to fill the role of frothing lunatic that the network has missed since Beck’s departure.

Monday night’s program featured an interview with Frank VanderSloot, a wealthy businessman who is the finance chair of Mitt Romney’s campaign for president. VanderSloot has been the subject of a Murdoch Media blitz to defend him from what they have called a smear campaign. In fact, VanderSloot was merely identified factually as a major Romney supporter and his history of ultra-conservativism and anti-gay activism was truthfully reported. He has received the sort of attention that any prominent political operative might expect to receive.

However, in conservative circles that is regarded as something akin to McCarthyism. That’s the characterization that has been disseminated in Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and Fox Nation. And now O’Reilly is chiming in with the most absurd and irresponsible rhetoric to date. Here is the exchange between O’Reilly and VanderSloot:

O’Reilly: Some believe this is economic terrorism…not economic, political terrorism. That targeting a business man like you, running an honest business, because of your freedom to donate to who you want to donate to, but try to ruin you personally and professionally, that’s terrorism. Political terrorism. Do you see it that way?

VanderSloot: Well, I have these two questions, Bill, to President Obama. Why did you publish a list? […] Then the second question is, who is supposed to receive the message? Is it only the liberal press that’s supposed to go after these folks, or is it also the agencies that he runs, that he’s in charge of, and that report to him and want to please him? […]

O’Reilly: They want to intimidate you from giving any money to the campaign, and others like you who might be thinking of it. Business people go “I’m not gonna do that. They might put my name on the web and I’ll lose customers. So I’m not gonna do it.” But that’s terrorism.

VanderSloot: I suppose it is.

Just to be clear, what O’Reilly and VanderSloot are describing as terrorism is actually just disclosure. They believe that transparency in political donations by powerful corporations and wealthy individuals is an unwarranted burden. They would much prefer to be able to buy elections and influence politicians in complete secrecy. And even though donors to candidates of both parties are subject to the same disclosure rules, only Republicans consider such requirements the equivalent of terrorism.

Aside from the obvious absurdity of attacking open and honest political disclosures as terrorism, this sort of discussion also trivializes the very real horrors experienced by actual victims of violence perpetrated in the name of intimidation and fear. O’Reilly and VanderSloot should be ashamed of themselves, but instead used the occasion of this madness to solicit donations for Romney. They closed the segment by celebrating VanderSloot’s new donation of $100,000 to Romney’s SuperPAC.

Seriously, when is the Federal Elections Commission going to start monitoring Fox News for its in-kind contributions to Republicans? The network is a non-stop ad for the GOP.