Not So Breitbart: The Case Of Jon Stewart’s Crybaby Apologists

John Nolte at Breitbart News has so completely given up the pretense of having anything coherent to say that he has begun prefacing his columns with excuses for why they fail to make any point. Here is how he begins his latest lame assault on his favorite target, Jon Stewart:

“Jon Stewart apologists will crybaby over my analysis of these numbers because crybabying is what Stewart apologists do.”

As a credentialed Stewart apologist, I would like to point out that I am about to “crybaby” over Nolte’s analysis, not because it’s what I do, but because he is such a dumbfuck of an analyst.

Nolte works overtime to be as obnoxious as possible as he seeks to disparage Stewart’s ratings. The absurd angle he tackles is that there is some correlation between Stewart’s late night satirical Daily Show and the puerile Fox News afternoon blabfest “The Five.” For those who haven’t seen it, it features four frothing far-right wingnuts and one impotent, and apparently intoxicated, Fox-style democrat.

After asserting that Stewart is not intellectually honest, and that Stephen Colbert is not funny (and Greg Gutfeld is?), Nolte leaps into his ratings analysis saying that…

“The Five” once again won the viewership battle with the two clowns we are assured are some kind of American phenoms. Gutfeld and company drew a total of 1.478 million viewers, while Stewart and Colbert drew 1.462 and 1.217 respectively.

First of all, anyone who knows anything about television knows that comparing the raw audience totals of two completely different dayparts is meaningless. But Nolte’s faulty reporting extends far beyond that basic fact. He revels victoriously in declaring that The Five won a battle that never took place. But he bases his conclusion on a single, unrepresentative day. So even if you want to make this pointless comparison, it would be more honest to note that the Daily Show regularly posts higher numbers than The Five. In fact, on the days just before, and just after, the day that Breitbrat Nolte cherry-picked, the Daily Show “won the viewership battle” against the five clowns on Fox.

Breitbart on StewartA more honest comparison would be between the Daily Show and the O’Reilly Factor with which it competes head-to-head (although the Factor is a repeat). That’s a contest that Stewart also wins on a regular basis. The Daily Show generally places in the top twenty-five cable programs. But even O’Reilly’s first run broadcast barely squeaks into the top 100.

This is further evidence of Nolte’s proclivity for lying to his readers, a habit he surely picked up from his pseudo-saintly mentor, Andrew Breitbart. Nolte has been viscerally obsessed with bashing Stewart for quite a while, and in every instance he utterly fails to make a coherent argument. But you have to admire his tenacity in persevering despite falling on his face so brutally and frequently.

Not So Breitbart: Pathetic Vetting Of Obama’s BBQ With Bill Ayers

The “vetting” of Barack Obama continues at Breitbart News and, true to form, serves only to embarrass the juvenile efforts of Breitbrat Joel Pollak and his childish pals who suffer an acute case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Today’s banner headline at the Breitbrats sandbox blares: “Exclusive – The Vetting – Senator Barack Obama Attended Bill Ayers Barbecue, July 4, 2005.”

Breitbart News

OMG! Barack Obama has been caught at a clandestine socialist assembly of treasonous celebrants of America’s independence. These subversives were observed igniting fires (in BBQ grills) and launching explosives (fireworks). They may even have been imbibing beer and other alcoholic intoxicants.

Breitbrat Joel is clearly proud of the shocking revelation he has uncovered that puts Obama in the backyard of his neighbor, Bill Ayres, for an ostensibly patriotic party. The “proof” that so excites Pollak is an ancient blog post by another neighbor of Ayers that describes a third-hand witness to Obama sharing a picnic table at a Fourth of July gathering. The author said…

“Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama! Actually, that’s a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.”

Well then, that settles it. The author of the post never saw the then-senator, but some unnamed person claims to have seen him. And there couldn’t be any possibility of this mysterious party guest making a mistake, could there? The post goes on to note that despite keeping a watch out for a confirmation siting, there were no other Obama spottings. The only corroboration was “another source” quoted by Pollak who was also not identified.

Even if true, Pollak’s unrestrained glee over this “discovery” means nothing. It stems from his false contention that Obama’s socializing with Ayers contradicts a statement his campaign issued in 2008. However, the quote that Pollak himself posted says…

“Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.”

Of course, there is nothing in that statement that conflicts with an account of Obama encountering Ayers at a neighborhood party. In fact, it explicitly affirms that Obama had such contacts “in the neighborhood.” Where’s the controversy?

Pollak is plainly obsessed with smearing Obama for having had a relationship with a neighbor who was also a respected university professor and education consultant. But Pollak’s pea-brain can only contain information about Ayers that portrays him as the “radical, domestic terrorist” of his youth some forty years ago. Pollak cannot see past his hostility toward Obama, and the result is hysterical conspiracy tantrums like this. It’s the same sort of dementia that produces absurd postings on Fox Nation like today’s article that proposes that Obama had an “unpresidential” past:

Fox Nation

The past to which the Fox Nationalists refer is his adolescence when he did unpresidential things like play basketball and wear hats. Seriously? This is the best they can do?

THE VETTING: Mitt Romney Is A War Mongering Draft-Dodger

Breitbart News has been running a series of articles purporting to “vet” President Obama. They contend that the so-called “liberal” media never properly examined Obama’s past and the events of his youth that formed his character.

For the most part, the Breibrats vetting has been a circus that uncovered silly trivialities or outright lies. For instance, with no evidence whatsoever, they alleged that Obama’s college grades were lower than George W. Bush (They weren’t. Obama graduated magna cum laude, while Bush squeaked by with a C- average). They furthered the Birther conspiracy by claiming to have discovered documents that prove Obama was born in Kenya (He wasn’t. The documents were in error and the person responsible admitted it). They accused Obama of having anti-white, Marxist views associated with his Harvard law professor (He didn’t. Neither Obama nor Prof. Derrick Bell held those views).

However, in the spirit of vetting, and fully informing the public about the histories of our presidential aspirants, Here is a factual account of Mitt Romney’s past that you probably won’t see on Breibart News:

Mitt Romney At Stanford

In 1966 Mitt Romney briefly attended Stanford University in California. It was a tumultuous time when the Vietnam war was stirring up dissent among America’s youth and a vibrant peace movement was growing. Mitt Romney, however, would have none of that. He was a staunch defender of the war. The photo above shows Romney (far right) at a counter-protest to a sit-in at the office of Stanford president Wallace Sterling organized by peace activists who opposed Sterling’s plans to assist in the drafting of students. Doesn’t Romney look dapper in his white slacks and sport coat?

Despite Romney’s steadfast support for the war, he still secured a deferral that kept him from serving in the military. And even though he claimed that his deferral was due to his position as a missionary on behalf of his Mormon church (and later a student deferment), he nevertheless found time to attend rallies in favor of sending other young men to war.

Romney BoysLike many Republican hypocrites, Romney is a chickenhawk who advocates the glory of battle only for other people’s sons. As for his own family, he once responded to a question concerning why none of his five boys were serving in Iraq or Afghanistan by saying that “one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected.” That’s a typically Romulan statement that illustrates what an elitist he is, who considers himself exempt from the rules by which the rest of the peasant hordes must abide.

The Breitbrats will surely ignore this new and revealing photo of Romney. Because even while they pursue their mission of vetting the President, they oppose and ridicule any examination of Romney’s past. Earlier this month Breitbrat Ben Shapiro castigated the Washington Post for publishing an article about Romney’s high school bullying of a classmate. Shapiro made it all too clear that, in his opinion, the Post was outside the bounds of ethical reporting by digging up dirt from Romney’s high school days. However, on the same day, Shapiro himself posted an article about Obama’s alleged drugs use when he was in high school.

Breibart News

That’s how brazenly hypocritical these right-wing pseudo-journalists are. They aren’t interested in vetting anyone, They are only interested in disseminating propaganda and character assassination.

Bonus Bit: In further vetting of Romney, Buzzfeed discovered an old news item about a visit Romney made to a veteran’s homeless shelter in Massachusetts in 1994, during his losing campaign for the senate against Ted Kennedy. Before leaving Romney asked the shelter’s director what the biggest problem at the shelter was. The director said that it was getting enough milk on the meager allowances the shelter received from the state. Romney responded, “Well, maybe you can teach the vets to milk cows.” Good one, Mitt. And maybe they can just eat cake. The Breitbrats have already posted an item complaining about Milk-Gate.

Etch-a-Sketch Update: Apparently Romney was for the Vietnam war before he was against it. Despite his activism in support of the war in 1966, by 1970 he had turned against it saying that it was a “political blunder” and that “I think we were brainwashed.” Another outright flip-flop.

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

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

Breitbart-Obama's SAT1) Exclusive: The Vetting – Did Obama Have Lower SAT Scores Than George W. Bush?
This article by Charles C. Johnson may be exclusive because no one else would run a story so thoroughly devoid of substance. The fact that the question in the title is never answered is consistent with the rest of the phony series allegedly “vetting” President Obama. The article opens by bragging that…

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

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

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

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

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

Breitbart-Ailes/Stewart2) Roger Ailes: Jon Stewart Told Me He’s a Socialist
The headline in this article is a rehashing of scurrilous insults that Fox News CEO Roger Ailes first threw at the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart back in December of 2010. At that time Ailes told interviewer Howard Kurtz that the executives at NPR were Nazis, that there was a cabal of left-wing rabbis, and that Stewart was both an atheist and a socialist. It was an utterly unhinged tirade that exposed Ailes as borderline psychotic. And now, Breitbrat John Nolte posts this screed attacking Stewart as an “elitist millionaire socialist” who…

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

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

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

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

Breitbart Vetting Journalists3) Their Rules, Not Ours: Time to Vet Private Lives of Journalists?
This may be the most ignorant and disturbing thing I have seen yet on Breitbart News. They are overtly threatening journalists with a campaign of slander and personal attacks on reporters who they don’t happen to like. Their razor-thin justification for such abhorrent behavior is that some reporters have published stories about ultra-wealthy Romney supporters who are trying to buy the election. Breitbrat John Nolte accuses reporters of trying to “intimidate and frighten” poor, defenseless, right-wing millionaires, so in retaliation he threatens to dig into the personal lives of journalists that have no relevancy to their work. He warns…

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

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

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

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

Breitbart - Obama First Tea Partier

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

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

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

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.

Breitbart’s Unhinged Hypocrisy: Vetting Obama OK, Vetting Romney Disgraceful

The Breitbart site is well known for dishonesty and rabid servility to the uber-rightist agenda. But this morning they may have outdone themselves in an Olympian feat of hypocrisy.

The Washington Post published an article today by Jason Horowitz, detailing accounts of bullying and possible gay-bashing by Mitt Romney while attending the elite Cranbrook prep school. According to five independently acquired reports by his former schoolmates, Romney led verbal and physical assaults on other students who were presumed to be gay.

Responding to that article, Breitbrat Ben Shapiro posted a frenetic critique that took the Post to task for what he called “an egregious hit piece.” Shapiro saw both fallacy and conspiracy on the part of the Post.

[T]he timing of the story is obviously designed to protect President Barack Obama, who just yesterday said that he would embrace same-sex marriage. The narrative from the media therefore became: Obama is fine with gays, Romney hates them. Since they had zero evidence that Romney has any antipathy toward homosexuals, they had to dig up an incident nearly 50 years ago, invest it with anti-gay rage, and print it as fact.

This is character assassination of the worst kind. It doesn’t go to Romney’s deeply-held beliefs and positions. It doesn’t show how he was defined as a young man. It’s just an old prank brought up and infused with nastiness, sans evidence, in order to turn Romney into a jerk in the public eye.

Breitbrat Ben’s assertion that this story was timed to benefit the President reveals his inability to comprehend reality. For Shapiro’s timing conspiracy theory to be true, the White House must have told Horowitz to start working on the story months ago so that it would be ready the day after an announcement that no one could have anticipated.

Shapiro’s defense of Romney as having no ‘antipathy toward homosexuals” surely rings hollow to all the homosexuals who would be forbidden to marry or even enjoy the same civil liberties as straight citizens. And his characterization of physical assault and possible gay-bashing as merely “an old prank” is evidence of Shapiro’s own insensitivity to such victimization.

But the most brazenly unhinged assertion in Shapiro’s column is his lambasting of the Post for “dig[ging] up an incident nearly 50 years ago” and declaring that “It doesn’t show how [Romney] was defined as a young man.” Seriously?

Shapiro, and others on the Breitbart team, have spent months digging up ancient material about Obama in a relentless campaign of character assassination. All of it was meant to show how Obama was defined as a young man. However, most of it fell impotently into the dustbin of pseudo-journalism due its irrelevancy, but their intent was clear. They called their slander “vetting” and posted such inane classics as Obama embracing his law professor at Harvard – the well-respected Derrick Bell, who was the first African-American to receive tenure at Harvard Law School.

Even more astonishing, while Shapiro blasted the Post for publishing information about Romney’s high school history, Shapiro himself posted information about Obama’s high school past.

Breitbart

Somehow the irony and hypocrisy of posting two stories – one complaining about reports of Romney’s past and the other doing to Obama what he was complaining about – on the very same day, seems to have escaped the wet noodle mind of Breitbrat Ben. His article on Obama rehashed information that has been known for years and was disclosed by Obama in his own writings and speeches.

But that didn’t stop Shapiro from misrepresenting the truth. He contradicted himself by asserting that “Obama, by all accounts, was a habitual drug user in high school,” even though a couple of paragraphs down he cited a report in the New York Times wherein Obama’s classmates said that drugs played only a “bit part” in Obama’s youth. So it obviously wasn’t “by all accounts.” Then Shapiro went on to scattershoot tired and false allegations that Obama was a black nationalist and a communist.

When a phony journalist like Shapiro can write an article about the absurdity of dredging up a decades old story, and then himself dredges up a decades old story – the same day – there has been a serious cognitive disconnect. It is a sign that these people are either severely disturbed or deliberately deceitful. Either way it is additional evidence that they simply cannot be taken seriously and that they may require acute care at an in-patient facility.

[Update] Romney has responded to the WaPo story by saying that…

“I played a lot of pranks in high school and they describe some that well you just say to yourself, back in high school well I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended obviously I apologize but overall high school years were a long time ago”

Romney also said that the didn’t recall having held down a classmate and cutting off his hair. Yeah right. His five school chums all remember, but the guy with the scissors has forgotten. He further said that it had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the victim. But how could he know that if he doesn’t recall the incident? That’s like saying “No, I didn’t kill my wife. And besides, she deserved it.”

LOL! Desperate Right-Wing Media Mocks Obama Rally

Let’s face it, conservatives are becoming more desperate and delusional every day. They hate their nominee for president and, in order to avoid the unthinkable prospect of President Obama’s reelection, they are literally hallucinating as they report on campaign events.

Obama / Romney Rallies

The Fox Nation posted an article they sourced from Twitter (that’s right, the anonymous news pros at Twitter) that featured a photo taken at Obama’s rally in Ohio yesterday. The headline reads “Not The ‘Overflow’ Crowd Obama Hoped For.” However, the photo contradicts the headline by showing thousands of supporters in the stadium’s stands. While it does not appear to be a full house, it is clearly well-attended. Officials estimated the crowd to be approximately 14,000. It should also be noted that the Twitter photo appears to have been taken prior to the start of the rally as other photos show the area in front of the stage to be packed with supporters.

The severity of delusional dysfunction was even more acute at Breitbart where they posted the same Twitter pic with the headline “Obama Launches Campaign In Empty Arena.” Empty? Really? Their readers must suffer from extreme cognitive impairment if they can read this tripe without falling down laughing. They even have a visual aid to make clear that the arena was far from empty. The arena holds 20,000, so it was more than two thirds full for an event six months prior to election day.

The brazen dishonesty of the the Breitbrats and the Fox Nationalists seems to have no lower boundary. They just keep descending into ever more surreal fantasy. By posting these hilariously mislabeled images they invite real world comparisons – which I have provided above. With rallies on the same weekend, Obama inspired thousands more than Romney’s paltry meetup. Which audience would you rather have if you were running for president?

You really have to wonder what motivates these wingnut propagandists. Surely they could produce better material than this. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit. Maybe this really is the best they can do. Or maybe the GOP has been overrun by a cell of Dadaist comedians and this is their idea of humor. God, I hope it’s the latter. That would explain things, because this is truly hysterical.

Breitbart Is Hot For Gay Activist Dan Savage

Most people have vivid memories of the first rumblings of romance in their youth. It usually manifested itself as teasing or taunting the object of one’s affection in their fifth grade class. That playful hostility was the surest sign of a crush in those days of flirtatious immaturity.

That must explain the response by the Breitbart crew to remarks made by gay activist Dan Savage to a group of high school journalism students. Savage’s address was typical of his controversial oratorical styling that commonly includes profanity and challenging subject matter. This address was no exception.

The part of the speech to which the Breitbrats, and a growing amen chorus of conservatives, object is when Savage observes that many Christians cling tightly to Biblical verses that condemn homosexuality even while they ignore passages that similarly condemn – to death – children who curse to their parents, women who are not virgins on their wedding day, and anyone who works on the Sabbath. That contradiction was too much for some of the student reporters as well as their adult counterparts in the right-wing press.

I have no problem with coverage of public figures like Savage that includes criticism of their ideas or even their method of presenting them. However, there is something extraordinary about the Breitbrats’ reaction that bears mentioning. They posted at least nine articles in one day blasting Savage for his remarks at the student convocation and resurrecting past commentaries that have nothing to do with it.

Breitbart Dan Savage

The ferocity of their assault reminded me of the childish romantic who, knowing that his desire could not be fulfilled, resorted to harassing his love interest. This applies particularly to Ben Shapiro who wrote six of the articles. Is Breitbrat Ben secretly stuck on Dan Savage? Who can say? But he is plainly obsessed in some respect and might want to examine his deeper motivations. This sort of fixation is unhealthy and, for his own good, Shapiro should not ignore it.

Breitbart’s Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, And Penis Envy

A few days ago I posted an article in response to a moronic ratings analysis by Breitbart’s editor-in-chief John Nolte. I noted that Nolte’s glee over the Daily Show having lower ratings than some other cable programs was a vacant and desperate stab at relevance, particularly considering that the ratings of his right-wing darlings at Fox News were even lower.

Breitbart - Daily Show

What I hadn’t noticed at the time was that Nolte is virtually fixated on what any coherent observer would agree is the unparalleled success of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The late night Comedy Central pair have created a Renaissance of political satire and much of their humorous insight has entered the popular culture. In addition to their broad-based popularity, they have both been the recipients of numerous broadcasting awards – and not just Emmys, but journalism honors. The Colbert Report just won its second Peabody this month.

That must be why the Breitbrats are so feverishly hammering away at these stars of satire. Nolte is either consumed with jealousy or merely suffering from a paranoid psychosis triggered by his Olympian lameness. In the past month Nolte has published four articles all making the same insipid and easily rebutted claim that Stewart and Colbert are failures. Four articles restating the same misinformation. But worse, Nolte imagines some Grand Design being orchestrated by Comedy Central and the White House to subvert – oh, I don’t know – motherhood? The NRA? Democracy? God’s will? In his dementia Nolte describes Stewart and Colbert as…

“…elite millionaire, speech-policing leftists,” and…
“…the dynamic duo of left-wing free speech oppressors…” and…
“…left-wing, speech policing, Obama Palace Guards…”

Talk about delusional. And he hasn’t even gotten warmed up. He also declared that…

“It’s all a mainstream media scam used to protect Obama and to get leftist talking points out there using a Trojan horse marked ‘satire.’ and…
“The corrupt entertainment media creates a phony reality around television shows they like.”

Nolte takes particular offense at Colbert about whom he rants…

“There’s a HUGE left-wing agenda behind what Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert is doing, and it’s a serious agenda that has nothing to do with satire.” And that Colbert is…

“…attacking constitutional free speech by attempting to make a mockery of a new Supreme Court ruling that finally allows private citizens and corporations to have as much say in the political process as Stephen Colbert and corporations like, say, Comedy Central.” [Editor’s note: Comedy Central is not a corporation]

Who knew? The Stewart/Colbert cabal to undermine America’s foundations, in concert with a Marxist Manchurian in the White House, is conspiring to silence “private citizens and corporations” like the Koch brothers, and China’s biggest trading partner, Wal-Mart. Indeed, Colbert’s mockery of the Citizen’s United decision is brutal in that it exposes the blatant excess of corporate billions corrupting the democratic process. Thank goodness for the Breitbrats who single-handedly come to the defense of otherwise defenseless waifs like ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, and AstroTurf Tea Party sugar-daddies at Americans for Prosperity.

I’m not sure why Nolte is so obsessed that he feels it’s necessary to repeatedly pound on a couple of comedy programs, especially when those programs are often as tough on liberals as they are on conservatives as I documented here. Perhaps he doesn’t like the abundance of dick jokes. Or maybe it’s just a part of his moral character that compels him to speak out when he sees injustice, such as this recent outpouring of outrage over an HBO program that crossed the lines of decency.

Breitbart HBO Penis Cup

Apparently the outrageousness of the program was not enough to keep Nolte from republishing the object of his disgust. And he further demonstrated his moral fiber and family values by advocating the murder of the child-actress’ mother (Nolte later scrubbed that remark and replaced it with one saying that the mother should lose custody of her children). And somewhere in the process Nolte hallucinates that the left is supportive of this sort of televised gross-out.

I can’t say that I was ever a fan of Andrew Breitbart. In fact, I considered him to be a deliberately dishonest purveyor of propaganda who reveled in rancor and divisiveness. But still, I have to wonder if he would be proud of his successors who are driving his media empire into ever more juvenile territory. I would imagine that he would at least be dismayed at what a hopelessly ineffective operation they have turned his web site into by slathering it up with such puerile trash. On the other hand, Breitbart’s biggest claim to fame was posting a TwitPic of a congressman’s wiener. So respectability was never really a part of his mission, but the wiener obsession survives.

Not So Breitbart: Jon Stewart vs. Robot Chicken

The Breibrats over at BigHollywood have once again set out to knock Jon Stewart down a peg by noting that there are other TV programs with higher ratings. I suppose I should give them credit for being able to count and to read a list, but they are still embarrassingly bad at ratings analysis, so I thought I would help them out by amending their big headline:

Breitbart - BigHollywood

If the Breibart crew is intent on criticizing Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for being such losers, it might have been a good idea to read a little further down the list (well, actually to the very bottom), where they would have found Fox News stars Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Then this commentary would not seem so idiotic:

But-but-but the media keeps telling me that two guys regularly humiliated in the ratings by cartoons, reruns, and “Robot Chicken” are American phenoms…?

But-but-but the media keeps telling me that two guys who couldn’t muster three million viewers combined are populist heroes who speak for the people…? […]

Stick that in your clown nose, you speech-policing, left-wing elitists.

Hey, maybe stop being dicks. That might help.

If Stewart and Colbert are humiliated by placing 27th and 45th, than how would the Breitbrats describe Hannity and O’Reilly showing up dead last at 99 and 100? It would seem that Stewart and Colbert are more representative spokespersons for the people than Fox’s biggest stars. And as for being dicks…I think the Breitbrats have that honor sewn up.