The Anatomy Of A Glenn Beck Lie

Posted by on February 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm. 16 Comments :

Glenn Beck Rodeo ClownGlenn Beck’s glassy-eyed followers are irredeemably mesmerized by him and would sooner hack off a limb then concede that he was less than honest about anything. They wail plaintively that he is unwaveringly truthful and that no one has ever proven that he has lied. For the record, I have proven it many times.

On today’s program Beck was generous enough to provide another example of his compulsive dishonesty. And it was packaged in a familiar form for Beck: the old out-of-context video clip gambit. On this occasion Beck presented this segment of President Obama discussing health care:

Obama: [W]e said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

After playing the clip, Beck went into outrage overdrive, complaining first about the sentence fragment “…consistent in saying to people…” implying that Obama was only “saying” these things and that he didn’t mean them. Only an idiot would interpret these extemporaneous remarks in context that way. And that, of course, is Beck’s built-in excuse.

But the larger corruption of the truth was Beck’s reaction to the news that some provisions were “snuck” into the bill that violated the pledge that no one would get between you and your doctor. Beck was aghast that the President would tolerate such legislative misbehavior. He castigated the President for not immediately putting a halt to Congress’s covert attempt to countermand his promise and tarnish his honor. Beck went on to declare that if the President had spoken up about this, that he (Beck) would heartily approve:

Beck: Well let me tell you something. Not only would that be the right thing for any president to do, his approval ratings would go through the roof. People would actually say “Well OK now, wait a minute. If he’s gonna do that I might actually listen to him.”

Apparently Beck wasn’t listening because Obama did precisely what Beck was accusing him of not doing. Obama expressly stated that he had caught the errant provisions and set about eliminating them. And this information was in the very segment that Beck had just played on the air. Except that Beck cut out the parts where Obama talked about scrubbing the problem provisions. Here’s the quote again in full. Note that the bold section in the middle is the only part that Beck played:

Obama: If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example…

…we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

And so we are in the process of scrubbing them and making sure that it’s tight.

The complete clip shows unequivocally that Obama is keeping his pledge regarding the doctor/patient relationship. In fact, he was merely giving an example of incidents where institutional kinks can waylay legislation and demonstrating that he wasn’t falling for it. But Beck’s audience won’t know that because Beck unscrupulously edited it out. Then he portrayed the President as negligent for not doing something that in reality he did. And he even went so far as to admit that the American people would reward the President for doing the things that Beck left on the cutting room floor. And, of course, that’s reason Beck did it.

Beck certainly knew the content of the whole speech. So it is inescapable that he deliberately misrepresented it to advance his deceit. He purposefully truncated it to prevent his audience from seeing anything about Obama that they might regard as positive. And in the process he hammered Obama for not doing what he actually did do.

It’s too bad that most of Beck’s disciples will never hear about this fraud. Although many are so thoroughly bewitched that they might not even grasp it if they did hear about it. But it is important to continue to document it. Open minded people who haven’t formed opinions about Beck need to have this kind of information to keep from being duped by him.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The NeoCon Plan To Save Obama’s Presidency: Bomb Iran

Posted by on February 3, 2010 at 12:30 pm. 3 Comments :

If you weren’t already repulsed by the rampant cynicism and callousness of the uber-right in America, then an article just published in the National Review should do the trick.

Notorious NeoCon, Daniel Pipes, penned a column that purports to be offering President Obama advice on how to improve his favorability ratings: Bomb Iran!

The notion that any president should order military engagement for the purpose of shoring up polling numbers can only be acceptable to far-right vultures like Pipes. But Pipes is serious about this. The article is not titled “How to eliminate the Iranian Nuclear Threat.” It is titled “How to Save the Obama Presidency.” He even cited as an example the polling bump George W. Bush got after 9/11:

“Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene.”

This advice from Pipes could not be more wrong, both morally and strategically. On the moral scale, Pipes is suggesting that the President put the lives of American troops at risk for political gain. He argues that this would be “a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him.” Why Pipes thinks that that is an appropriate justification for war, he never adequately explains.

But Pipes is also wrong from a strategic standpoint. He asserts that such an attack “would require few ‘boots on the ground’ and entail relatively few casualties.” This shallow assessment ignores the obvious lessons of past military debacles in the region. It is particularly surprising given that Pipes himself admitted that he had misread the risks associated with the war in Iraq. In his article in April of 2003, he belittled admonitions from regional experts that the invasion of Iraq would exacerbate tensions, escalate terrorism, and aid the recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda. He dismissed those warnings saying, “Actually, the precise opposite is more likely to happen.”

Pipes predicted few casualties in Iraq as well. He also bought in to the myth that the war would be short, would reduce terrorism, would produce stability, and that the Iraqis would greet us with candy and flowers. We all know now that the experts were right and Pipes was grievously wrong, as he himself admitted three years later in an update to his original article.

Will we have to wait another three years for Pipes to confess that his fatally flawed judgment failed him again? It certainly hasn’t stopped him from making a similarly erroneous assessment with regard to Iran. And this time he wraps it in a grotesquely political cloak to conceal his true intentions.

Pipes freely admits that he has no interest in seeing Obama’s popularity rise. So the suggestion to bomb Iran is not really a gesture of support for the Commander in Chief. It is more likely an expression of Pipes’ own obsession with hostility, and his thirst for blood. It is evidence of his antipathy for the people of the Middle East. And it is affirmation of his inability to form unbiased conclusions on serious matters like war.

For this he would sacrifice American and Iranian lives; he would promote the cause of jihadists; he would destroy the nascent democracy movement in Iran; and he would commit our nation to a third battlefront in a part of the world that is already unstable and distrustful of our motives. He is advising nothing less than a Crusade. And we know what happened the last time we had one of those.


Glenn Beck’s American Revival: It’s Gonna Blow Your Mind

Posted by on February 3, 2010 at 10:36 am. 13 Comments :

Pope Glenn BeckBack in November of 2009, Glenn Beck announced what he called his “100 Year Plan,” a series of sermons in which he would indoctrinate his disciples with his unique misunderstanding of “ethics, history, finance, community organizing and everything American’s need to know about how the government works.”

He said that his TV show would change as of the first of this year, but there’s been no evidence of that. In fact, he’s still replaying the same tired old out-of-context video clips of President Obama, Van Jones, etc., that he plastered his air with last year. But Yesterday he finally revealed that tickets for the first of his sermons will go on sale next week. The themes seem to have evolved from what Americans need to know about government to “Faith, Hope, and Charity.” In other words, he is fully embracing the mantle of the television evangelist that he clearly aspires to be. He is even calling the event “The American Revival,” and he promises that it will “blow your mind.”

Beck’s transformation from Morning Zoo DJ to Messianic Prophet is nearly complete. He isn’t even bothering to mask his ambitions anymore. Are you ready for Brother Beck’s Traveling Salvation Show?

“I want facts out there that you’ve never heard before, you’ve never learned. That you’ll sit in the audience and you’ll go ‘Oh my gosh. How did I not know that?’“

This should be easy for Beck. Since he makes up his own “facts” anyway, his parishioners won’t have heard any of them before.

“I’ve only done work on the first third so far and it will take your breath away…and make a case that is just dirt strong.”

One thing he is not lacking is ego. He is obviously convinced of his own inherent awesomeness and his ability to wow his audience, as if that takes much effort (keep a shiny object handy). And he has supreme confidence that he can make his case. But I’m not sure how strong dirt is.

“It comes with a workbook…It’s basically a survival guide, an American survival guide…You’re gonna be an American evangelist.”

Uh oh. This may be where he loses them. It may not be a good idea to start handing out homework assignments. Also, he’s mixing his metaphors. If you have an American survival guide it doesn’t make you an American evangelist. I makes you an American survivalist.

The survivalist model makes much more sense based on Beck’s history of predicting doom for the country. He is fixated on Armageddon. He routinely beseeches his flock to adopt his 3G’s: God, gold, and guns. And his rhetoric is dripping with nightmare scenarios of ruin and woe:

“If you’re here every night I don’t need to convince you that there are people intentionally destroying our country. Both on the right and the left. The rain is coming. I think you feel it in your gut. It is time to build an Ark. It is time to prepare yourself for some tough times.”

“You’re gonna see a black and white world, man, that is nothing but destruction and ugly. I don’t know why no one else will tell you the truth about these things. I don’t know and I don’t care.”

“I know what our country is headed towards. I know the struggles that are ahead in my life and I know the struggles that are ahead in your life. It’s not going to be pretty.”

The end times are upon us. Prepare yourself for a mighty fall. Then cower in your shelter and await the Rapture. But don’t forget to come out for the big Revival Show. Tickets go on sale next week. Be There!


Has It Really Come To This: Boob Bombs?

Posted by on February 2, 2010 at 3:39 pm. 3 Comments :

Boob BombsThe Fox family of propagandists has long been a partner of the world’s terrorists. They vigorously strive to exacerbate anxieties about security, mostly sensationalized and irrational, via their many media platforms. This promotion of dread is the stuff upon which terrorism relies to be effective. Al Qaeda owes Fox News a debt.

Today on Fox Nation, the war to produce evermore trepidation escalated with a featured link to an article on WorldNetDaily warning that the British spy agency, MI5 is “Hunting Breast Implants of Death.”

“Agents for Britain’s MI5 intelligence service have discovered that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain’s leading teaching hospitals have returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives. […] Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery.”

WND is not reporting this as hypothetical, but as a plot already in progress with armed breasts at the ready. And all of this is according to…well, the subscription-only bulletin of WND’s own editor, Joseph Farah. In fact, there are five solicitations for his $10.00/month G2 bulletin in the brief excerpt posted on WND.

Were we to take these warnings seriously, it would require some adjustment to our transportation security procedures. We would need to start including Scarlett Johansson in our profiling criteria. And because the same explosive devices could be inserted in the buttocks, Jennifer Lopez would have to be added to the no-fly list. New guidelines will have to be written for airport screeners. If you look anything like Johansson or Lopez, you better allow extra time for boarding (and groping).

I, for one, am pretty upset about this. It’s one thing to be nervous about young Middle-Eastern guy with a long beard in the seat next to me. But if I have to be afraid of sitting next to a hot chick with an awesome rack, I don’t think I want to fly anymore. And who’s to say these well-endowed suicide bombers won’t also show up in shopping malls or sporting events? I think I may have spotted more than a few potential terrorists at the Grammys a couple of days ago.

The consequences of this new threat will weigh heavily on the bosom of the national security infrastructure. What new measures will they need to bust the terror plotters who embrace this tactic? And as we jiggle with our defense strategies, will the terrorists just play a game of tit-for-tat? The whole scenario is udderly unpredictable. There will be those who will attempt to knock down these warnings, but the knockers must not be allowed to cleave our resolve. The only way to respond may be to nip it in the bud. But one thing is for sure, we will need keep abreast of the new developments.

Thanks to Fox Nation for opening our eyes to the naked truth (and my apologies for the foregoing).


Fox News And Breitbart Smear O’Keefe Prosecutor

Posted by on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 am. 2 Comments :

In a report that is jam-packed with falsehoods, Fox News casts sinister aspersions on the motives of the U.S. Attorney who brought the case against pimp/journalist James O’Keefe for his alleged felonious activities in the office of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.

The first paragraph of the article, titled “U.S. Attorney Steps Down From O’Keefe Case,” has nothing whatsoever to do with the story as headlined. Instead, it appears to be no more than an attempt to set up an allegation that the U.S. Attorney’s office deliberately filed false charges against O’Keefe and his accomplices.

“James O’Keefe, accused of trying to tamper with the phones of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, was ‘framed’ by the media and the U.S. attorney’s office, Andrew Breitbart, publisher of BigGovernment.com, told Fox News Monday.”

The second paragraph of the article eventually gets around to the point of the story, but only after asserting a series of additional falsehoods dispensed by ultra-conservative propagandist, Andrew Breitbart.

“The same day the man who first published James O’Keefe’s explosive videos exposing wrongdoing at community organizer ACORN came to his defense Monday, claiming the conservative filmmaker ‘sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney’ while the prosecutor made his case to the media, the U.S. attorney involved stepped down.”

Let’s just set aside the fact that no wrongdoing on the part of ACORN has ever been proven; and that there is no evidence that O’Keefe was denied or delayed access to an attorney, or even an allegation of that by O’Keefe; and that the prosecutor did not make a case to the media while O’Keefe was being held. The first reports in the press didn’t come out until after he was released. Now we can deal with the real issue.

In this article, ostensibly about U.S. Attorney Jim Letten recusing himself from the O’Keefe case, Fox News went to great lengths to juxtapose that news with allegations of wrongdoing from Breitbart. Those allegations were featured in the lede and repeated in the following paragraph that explicitly tied Breitbart’s charges to the recusal. The Fox News version of events was that Letten stepped down the same day Breitbart issued his defense of O’Keefe. The clear implication being that those two events had something to do with one another. Fox News is plainly and irresponsibly insinuating that Letton stepped aside because of some impropriety.

The same implied correlation occurred in the very next paragraph wherein the charge that O’Keefe was framed was repeated, followed by Fox News again connecting that to Letten’s recusal by saying that it took place “hours later.” For the record, the New Orleans Times-Picayune (in an act of actual journalism) has confirmed that Letten asked to be recused a week ago, long before the smear by Breitbart and Fox. The remainder of the article was a virtually uninterrupted platform for Breitbart’s wholly unsupported defense of O’Keefe. Breitbart was quoted extensively making allegations for which he had no foundation.

“James O’Keefe sat in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney, while the U.S. attorney leaked the information about his arrest, helping the media frame it as ‘Watergate Junior.'”

“The panty bomber on Christmas was given — you know, this guy’s from Al Qaeda, and he’s not even an American citizen, and he’s given access to an attorney right away. I believe that this was a concerted effort, this is just my opinion, to allow for the media to frame the issue to put James O’Keefe in a very bad position.”

“It [O’Keefe’s arrest] is tied to the Justice Department. And we’ve been very aggressive in asking Eric Holder to investigate what’s seen on these ACORN tapes and he’s ignored it.”

Fox News made no attempt to verify any of these remarks, nor did they attempt to interview anyone who might have rebutted them. They let them stand unchallenged as if they were settled facts. However, they did reprint O’Keefe’s prior statement in defense of himself. A statement that had already been demonstrated to be untrue.

“The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Sen. Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their senator.”

Of course, were that the case, why did he leave Landrieu’s office and try to gain access to the telephone wiring closet at another location? Fox News didn’t ask that question. Sean Hannity didn’t get an answer to that either in his exclusive fluffing interview with O’Keefe yesterday. In fact the whole interview was staged to permit O’Keefe to declare his innocence while refusing to answer substantive queries.

So who is U.S. Attorney Jim Letten whom Breitbart has accused of framing O’Keefe; of manipulating the press; of participating in a DOJ revenge plot against Breitbart?

Letten was a George W. Bush appointee who has served as U.S. Attorney since April of 2001. He is well known for his successful prosecution of former Democratic Louisiana Governor, Edwin Edwards. He has bipartisan support as a federal prosecutor with both Landrieu (a Democrat) and Sen. David Vitter (a Republican) backing his reappointment to the post by the Obama administration. In fact, Vitter was so determined to see Letten reappointed that he held up the nominations of other prosecutors until he had an assurance from Attorney General Holder that Letten would remain on the job.

Is that the profile of a man that would engage in the mischief that Breitbart alleges? Is that someone whom Fox News ought to be insinuating recused himself from a case due to some malfeasance?

To make matters worse, Fox News exploits the confidential nature of recusals to bolster their innuendos about Letten. While they tie the recusal to Breitbart’s attacks, they never entertain the notion that Letten stepped aside for legitimate reasons. For instance, he may know one of the suspects, or his family, personally. One of O’Keefe’s accomplices, Robert Flanagan, is the son of Letten’s fellow Louisiana federal prosecutor, William Flanagan.

This illustrates the lengths to which Breitbart, and his patron Fox News, will go to defame anyone they deem to be obstructing their mission to dispense disinformation and to contribute to the ignorance of their audience. The article from Fox News is so transparently biased as to be bordering on libel. It is without question knowingly malicious and false. And it is a product of Fox’s “news” division, not the primetime TV opinion mongers upon whom Fox usually likes to blame their deliberately deficient reporting.

For Fox, there is no escaping the reality that this is inexcusably unprofessional and prejudicial. And sadly, it is business as usual at Fox.


Paranoia Strikes Deep: The Right’s Irrational Fear Goes Into Orbit

Posted by on February 1, 2010 at 6:23 pm. 1 Comments :

If you thought that Glenn Beck was a fount of surreal conspiracy theories that make Charles Manson look like the Dalai Lama, well, you’re right. But that’s another story. These days the virus infecting Beck is spreading rapidly throughout his community of wing nuts. There are raving rightists railing about fearsome fantasies everywhere you turn.

Senator Jim DeMint, who famously called health care Obama’s Waterloo, now has not only backed away from that statement, but he believes that the media misrepresented it. Even worse, he told a reporter that…

“…the version played over and over on cable news networks was slowed down ‘so it would sound more sinister.’“

I think DeMint saying that stopping Obama on health care “will be his Waterloo. It will break him,” is pretty sinister at any speed.

Then we have radio talker Roger Hedgecock penning a column for WorldNetDaily that could serve as the basis for a sequel to “The Sixth Sense.” Hedgecock’s version would have a kid who sees fatalities from faulty automobiles, except in a surprise ending Barack Obama is a terrorist plotting against a foreign manufacturer.

“But is government ‘greed’ a factor here? As a co-owner of Toyota rivals GM and Chrysler, is the Obama administration and its jihad against Toyota ‘consumer protection’ or revenge against a successful, non-union, red state based rival?

Never mind that Toyota acknowledged and apologized for the problem and the recall. If you look hard enough (and you’re not entirely sane) you can see the government ghosts slandering Toyota on behalf of GM.

And you can’t have an article about paranoia without Andrew Breitbart. The Godfather of pimps is now afraid that the Attorney General and his justice thugs held James O’Keefe incommunicado and leaked information to damage his reputation (as if that were possible). Furthermore, Breitbart believes that the DOJ is out to get him because…

“Well, it’s tied to the Justice Department. And we’ve been very aggressive in asking Eric Holder to investigate what’s seen on the ACORN tapes, and he’s ignored it.”

I can hear it now. O’Keefe was picked up in New Orleans and the call went out to the AG’s office with the White House and the CIA on conference. The whole national security apparatus was fired up as they concocted a scenario to take down a fake investigative journalist and his propaganda baron mentor.

Finally, the master, Beck himself, steps up to spin another of his horror filled tales of doom. In this episode Beck is convinced that some dastardly secret purpose is embedded in the dark recesses of health care or energy reform or education or even college football. The topic doesn’t really matter, Beck will find the evil in it. And it will be something about which he has warned you before:

“I told you for months: Do not allow anything to pass from this congress or this administration. Because they are building something. I don’t know what they’re building but they are putting pieces of whatever it is they are building in all of these bills and we don’t know it.”

I wonder how he knows that they are doing this if he doesn’t know it. And I wonder what he’s afraid of if he doesn’t know what it is. But just to be on the safe side he insists that nothing be passed for another three years, maybe seven. And this isn’t the first time that Beck raised fears of some ambiguous construction project. It’s a good thing we have Beck to cast out the demons of the world, people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom Beck believes is planning some monstrous assault on humanity in the next couple of weeks. We can depend on Beck to stand strong as a righteous defender of virtue:

“[L]iberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles.”

My apology. That last quote was actually Ahmadinejad. Sometimes it’s hard to tell these prophets of paranoia apart.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation Inadvertantly Bashes Sarah Palin

Posted by on February 1, 2010 at 12:41 pm. 4 Comments :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What Is Roger Ailes Doing On ABC’s This Week?

Posted by on January 31, 2010 at 12:34 pm. 12 Comments :

For some reason ABC News saw fit to invite Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News, onto ABC’s This Week to participate in the panel discussion. I wonder what Barbara Walters and the show’s producers thought Ailes would contribute. I wonder if they knew, when they sent the invitation, that Ailes would spend most of his time lying. I wonder if they ever gave consideration to inviting Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann. And I wonder if, in retrospect, they think the segment contributed to honest discourse and served to inform their viewers.

It may be unprecedented to have a CEO of a news network appearing on air as an advocate for the Republican Party. Just imagine the outrage that would ensue if the NBC or CBS chief took to the airwaves espousing Democratic politics. Ailes must have studied hard for his appearance because it shows in the quantity of grade A lies he produced (Media Matters has video). For instance:

Ailes said that the White House tried to ban Fox News from the media pool. That never happened. Fox failed to submit a request in time, so they were left off a list. As soon as they notified the White House, they were put back on by communications director Anita Dunn.

Ailes endorsed Glenn Beck’s accuracy but for “one unfortunate thing which he apologized for.” That was presumably in reference to Beck calling the president a racist who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Beck has never apologized for that. In fact he affirmed it on his radio show the following day. He has subsequently lost more than 80 advertisers.

Ailes reviewed the State of the Union speech as “pretty good” except that the President “did some dumb things like take on the Supreme Court. But the media saved him by blaming it all on Alito.” Maybe, if by media he means Fox News. It was his own network that repeatedly replayed Alito calling the the President a liar (ala Joe Wilson). And they weren’t doing it to blame Alito for anything, but to agree with him and to attack the President. Furthermore, it wasn’t dumb to criticize the Court for a disastrous ruling that gives corporations even more power to influence elections.

This appearance on ABC may reveal why Ailes is so rarely seen on TV. He is neither compelling nor persuasive. Even worse, he is laughably illogical. In one segment he said about Obama…

“He is enormously likable and I think despite what everybody says, people would like him to succeed. But he came in with a belief that the radical change he wanted, or what some people say is the radical change he wanted, would be widely accepted.”

First of all, to preface his remarks by saying “despite what everybody says…” Ailes is asserting that everybody is saying that they don’t want the President to succeed. That may be true for him and for “everybody” on his network, but not for the rest of the nation. The way Ailes puts it, people want Obama to succeed despite saying that they don’t. Secondly, Ailes is promulgating the falsehood that Obama has a “radical” agenda. That’s right out of Beck’s playbook. And finally, if Obama does advocate radical change, and people find him likable and want him to succeed, then isn’t that a mandate for radical change? Ailes’ logic is working against his argument.

There were a couple of enjoyable exchanges. In one, Paul Krugman flustered Ailes with a classic example of Fox News’ “deliberate disinformation.” During the campaign Obama addressed a question about health care by prefacing it with his own question, “Why don’t we have a European style health care system?” Then Obama explained why we do not, and should not, and went on to describe his own plan. But Fox News just played the truncated clip implying that Obama favored the European system. Ailes’ response to that was to change the subject.

In another segment, Walters brought up the newest Fox News contributor, Sarah Palin:

Walters: Do you think she has the qualifications to be president?
Ailes: Fox News is fair and balanced. We had Geraldine Ferraro on for ten years as the only woman the Democrats ever nominated. Now we have the only woman that the Republicans ever nominated. I’m not in politics. I’m in ratings. We’re winning.

Hmmm. What’s missing from that answer? Oh yeah. Whether or not Palin has the qualifications to be president. I suspect he dodged this one because he must remain fair and balanced toward the four potential Republican presidential candidates who are on his payroll: Palin, Huckabee, Santorum, and Gingrich.

As much as I would like to castigate ABC for giving Ailes a platform on their political panel, I can’t help thinking that it might actually serve the country better to have him on TV even more. There aren’t too many less appealing spokespeople for conservative hogwash than Ailes. However, if they are going to host him and his kind, they need to do a lot better job of balancing his propaganda and self-congratulatory bluster with serious liberals who can disinfect the studio with some truth.


James O’Keefe Issues Lie-Riddled Defense For Landrieu Affair

Posted by on January 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm. 7 Comments :

O'Keefe, Giles, BoratJames O’Keefe, the ersatz “pimp” famous for pestering ACORN, has published an amusing defense of his most recent criminal adventure. The statement was fittingly posted on Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment web site, as Breitbart is O’Keefe’s mentor and protector, despite having disavowed himself of any connection to little Jimmy’s felonious conduct.

O’Keefe begins his defense by stating that…

“The government has now confirmed what has always been clear: No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office. Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines. Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.”

However, nowhere is there any statement from the government that says any such thing. In fact, the only government statement is the release from the FBI that says O’Keefe and company…

“…were charged in a criminal complaint with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony.”

O’Keefe’s goes on to make an assertion that is patently false.

“As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.”

First of all, O’Keefe’s characterization of himself as a journalist is an insult to journalists. He brazenly violates the code of ethics as enumerated by the Society of Professional Journalists. Secondly, his goal has never been to expose corruption, but to harass liberals, as he freely admits:

“If you use their rules against them, you can really just tease them and mock them and really destroy them.”

And finally, he revealed no corruption or fraud, massive or otherwise, on the part of ACORN. Subsequent to the release of his videos there have been two independent investigations that concluded that there was no unlawful activity on the part ACORN and there have never been any findings of guilt or even charges brought. Well, except for the charges brought against O’Keefe for unlawful videotaping.

Then we come to O’Keefe’s ludicrous and illogical self-defense.

“In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.”

That assertion is false on its face. By his own admission to the FBI, he and his associates did much more than ask if the phones were working. They “manipulated the telephone system” in the Senator’s office. They sought access to the main wiring facility at another location and went to that location where they tried unsuccessfully to get in. O’Keefe’s attempt to diminish this by portraying it as an innocent effort to question the Senator’s staff is just plain dishonest. If, as he says, his “sole intent” was to ascertain whether the Senator “was purposely trying to avoid constituents,” then why did he need to go off-site to the wiring facility?

My favorite part of this whitewash was O’Keefe’s reconsideration of this idiotic escapade.

“On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.”

“On reflection?” I suppose a night in the slammer presents an ideal opportunity to reflect on one’s imbecility. And the prospect of ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine might inspire some serious self-appraisal as well. But I suspect that most of his time in lockup O’Keefe spent concocting these lame excuses. Apparently he needed more time behind bars to come up with something that didn’t blow copious chunks, because the single night was obviously not long enough.

The rest of O’Keefe’s anti-apologia was an extended whine about how the mainstream media is so mean to him. On that note – Be sure to catch James O’Keefe Monday on “Hannity” – Only on Fox News.. That’s right, The nation’s #1 cable news network (is that mainstream enough for you?), Fox News and Sean Hannity somehow scored this exclusive interview. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Much like the fact that Fox Nation officially exonerated O’Keefe. It was just a “stunt” according to the Fox Nationalists. Nevertheless, it is still a felony. Good luck with that stunt defense, Jim.


Bachmann, Blackburn Out Of Tea Party Conference. Is Palin Next?

Posted by on January 28, 2010 at 2:56 pm. 3 Comments :

The upcoming Tea Party National Conference has been reeling from reports of infighting amongst the rival Tea Bagger groups. Much of the controversy concerns the convention’s steep ($549.00) entry fee and allegations of financial improprieties on the part of the organizers. The convention has already lost a number of sponsors.

Well now their problems are multiplying as two of their featured speakers have canceled on them. Reps. Marsha Blackburn and Michele Bachmann have advised the Tea Party Nation, who are organizing the event, that they will be unable to attend. According to a press release from the Tea Party Nationalists, the cancellation was precipitated by congressional ethics rules:

“Due to a review of the for profit status of the event, the [ethics] committee could not authorize them to speak as the use of any proceeds from the event had not yet been established.”

That explanation is suspicious at best. First of all, the assertion that the Ethics Committee “could not authorize” the appearance doesn’t jibe with the committee’s function. It sounds more like the representatives are laying off blame on the committee to evade their own responsibility for ducking out of a shady booking. Secondly, a GOP aide cited last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC as the reason for ditching the affair. That’s patently absurd. If anything, the decision broadened the ability to associate with groups that contribute to campaigns, but in truth, the decision didn’t even address groups like the Tea Party Nation. So it appears the their actual reasons for canceling are likely different than their official ones.

With the departure of Blackburn and Bachmann, Sarah Palin is the convention’s only star attraction (unless you count the editor of WorldNetDaily or Judge Roy “Ten Commandments” Moore). And her participation is perhaps tenuous as well. Some Tea Party activists are unhappy with her role in the dubious affair and are calling on her quit (the one thing she’s good at). There is a very real fear that Palin will speak before a sparsely populated house. In fact, the Tea Party Nation web site currently has this announcement posted in all caps:

THE FIRST NATIONAL TEA PARTY CONVENTION IS SOLD OUT BUT TICKETS TO THE BANQUET WITH GOV. PALIN ARE STILL AVAILABLE!!!!!

Apparently Palin isn’t the draw that her public relations agency would have us believe. Faced with the embarrassing prospect of a low turnout, combined with the pressure from fellow Tea Baggers to withdraw, Palin may come down with a bad cold next week. That would leave the organizers in a bit of bind. And since Palin was forced to promise that her reported $100,000.00 speaking fee would not benefit her personally, forgoing it wouldn’t hurt her and wouldn’t dissuade her from walking away.

Assuming the gig goes off as planned, Andrew Breitbart is scheduled to introducing Palin. The timing couldn’t be better for planting the Godfather of pimp and possible felon, James O’Keefe, on the stage with the Queen Tea Bagger. Breitbart has also been approached as a replacement for Blackburn.

All in all, this seems like an event that is not to be missed – that is if you can’t get tickets to the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. Hey, maybe they could get Larry the Cable Guy to fill in for Palin.

Palin Responds: Greta Van Susteren asked Palin if she still intends to speak at the Tea Party Conference.

“Oh, you betcha I’m going to be there. I’m going to speak there because there are people traveling from many miles away to hear what that tea party movement is all about and what that message is that should be received by our politicians in Washington. I’m honored to get to be there.”

And the hundred grand doesn’t hurt either.