Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Media and Technology
This Someone-Shot-at-Me Nonsense Is the Last Straw: CNN Should Fire Lou Dobbs
Posted by Roberto Lovato, Huffington Post on October 31, 2009 at 7:10 AM.
Conflicting reports about a bullet that hit the top of Lou Dobbs' house in Sussex, New Jersey, are raising new and serious questions about the credibility of Lou Dobbs, CNN and its President, Jon Klein. Reports in the New York Post and here on the Huffington Post now indicate that the bullet was likely a hunter's errant shot. Yet Dobbs and CNN have rushed onto the airwaves, treating the incident as a de-facto murder attempt against the news host and his wife.
During Monday's broadcast on his radio show, Dobbs declared in the most urgent tone that "Three weeks ago this morning a shot was fired at my house," and that the shots "followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls." Dobbs went on to link the alleged attack to a vast Latino conspiracy made up of Fox News' Geraldo Rivera, LULAC, the National Council of La Raza and other "ethnocentric interest groups," groups that he says are "creating an atmosphere" that led to the alleged phone threats and supposed attack.
Spreading conspiracy theories about immigrants and Latinos is, of course, nothing new to Dobbs. With minimal evidence and maximum bluster, he insinuates that his serious critics -- none of whom endorse violence of any sort -- are somehow linked to a supposedly violent attack on his home. Sadly, such a leap is all too believable to some, like one irate Twitterer who commented "Looks like the Mexican hate groups shooting up Lou Dobbs home" or another who added "Better watch them America. These people are out of control."
To anyone familiar with the growing chorus of religious leaders, national organizations, community groups, Latinos and others demanding CNN cancel Dobbs' show, the timing of Dobbs' announcement is, at best, suspect. Last week, to coincide with the launch of CNN's "Latino in America" series, Latino groups held events across the country demanding the end of Dobb's program on CNN, attracting considerable national press, including an article in the New York Times. Then, on the following Monday, just days before MSNBC was scheduled to air an ad critical of him and CNN (an ad CNN refused to air), Dobbs suddenly unveils that his house has been fired on 3 weeks ago, and that his critics are somehow linked to the incident.
At this point, we expect this kind of faulty reporting from Dobbs. His show has increasingly given space to conspiracy theories -- like the so-called "Birthers"story -- and he has never been one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. But some of the most disturbing questions about the incident are about how CNN and Jon Klein are dealing with it.
Yesterday, Wolf Blitzer helped fan the Twitter fire with a much re-tweeted post: "Shocking news about a gun shot at Lou Dobbs' home in NJ -- while his wife was there. She is OK but a police investigation continues." Blitzer then had Dobbs on The Situation Room, where Dobbs told a "shocked" Blitzer that the alleged threatening phone calls-were "tied to the positions I've taken on illegal immigration." Rather than play the role of serious journalist by asking Dobbs how he links an incident the New Jersey State Police considers not "unusual" to alleged death threats caused by his positions on immigration issues, Blitzer simply let pass these assumptions without question and declared, "I hope they find out who's responsible for this."
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Right Wing Falsely Asserts Right Wing Boogeymen Bill Ayers And Jeremiah Wright Visited The White House
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on October 31, 2009 at 6:00 AM.
Early Friday evening, the White House voluntarily released nearly 500 visitor records of "individuals visiting the executive mansion between Inauguration Day and the end of July." The easily-searchable list includes some famous names like Michael Jordan, Michael Moore, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright. Of course, the mere suggestion of Ayers and Wright has sent the right wing into a tizzy.
The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb:
The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham:
The Washington Times' Amanda Carpenter:
Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Was CNN Host Lou Dobbs Really Shot at?
Posted by Isabel Macdonald, AlterNet on October 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM.
After CNN host Lou Dobbs stated this past Monday on his radio show that “my wife has now been and I have been shot at,” right-wing pundits and nativist groups are rallying to his cause.
Dobbs' discussion of the alleged shooting incident, which had occurred three weeks prior to the October 26 broadcast of the Lou Dobbs show, included mention of both longtime critic and FOX host Geraldo Rivera and the immigrant advocacy organizations calling for his removal from CNN including the National Council of La Raza, America's Voice and other "ethnocentric interest groups."
Without specifying who he suspects of making the alleged threats, he also said on his radio show that “They've threatened my wife, they've now fired a shot at my house while my wife was standing next to the car."
The incident prompted the president of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), a group that advocates greater restrictions on immigration, to declare that "The lies and hate coming from these radical pro-illegal alien groups is now manifesting in the form of gunfire." ALIPAC president William Gheen characterized this "Attack on the Dobbs Family" as "An Attack On All Americans That Value Our 1st Amendment Rights!"
In a post titled "Lou Dobbs discusses physical attacks, harrassment" Michelle Malkin also chimed in yesterday about the "open-borders mob... busy trying to shut down the speech of illegal immigration critics."
And concern about the incident was also echoed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who interviewed Dobbs yesterday, and characterized the incident as "very scary."
But were Lou Dobbs and his wife really "shot at" as he claimed?
Sergeant 1st class Stephen Jones, a NJ police spokesperson I interviewed by telephone yesterday, chuckled out loud after he heard about Dobbs’ account of the gunfire incident. Jones commented that he "wouldn't classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual." He also confirmed that there are hunters in the area, and stated that, "at this time of year hunter [shooting] complaints go up."
He observed that in the ongoing police investigation sparked by Dobbs' complaint, "nothing has been determined [regarding] what the intended target for this bullet was." Nor did Jones confirm whether the shots near Dobbs' house appeared to be an accident or intentional.
Another New Jersey police spokesperson, Julian Castellanos, noted that "it's a wide open area and there are hunters in the area." Castellanos explained that the bullet had hit the house in vicinity of the attic; it "hit the vinyl siding and fell to the ground" without penetrating the vinyl, he said.
While Lou Dobbs’ wife, Debi Dobbs, was standing outside the house at the time of the gunfire, the bullet did not come close to her; it "struck at the apex of the house, near the roof," and thus considerably higher than a standing person, Jones observed.
Jones says he had not seen any mention of death threats in the reports about this incident. As Dobbs stated on his October 26 radio show, the CNN host had “decided not to report” “threatening phone calls” he says he has received.
Asked what he thought of Dobbs' version of the gunfire incident, Sgt Jones stated, “I’m really going to leave Lou Dobbs’ assessment to himself.”
Julie Hollar of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting--a media watchdog group at which I worked for two years), was more forthcoming in her assessment of Dobbs' version of events. Hollar, who has written extensively on Dobbs for FAIR's magazine Extra!, commented that "It would hardly be surprising to find more misinformation smearing immigrants and their supporters coming from a guy who has been spreading such misinformation for years." She added that "The tragic thing is that so many people suffer actual violence at the hands of those whose xenophobic hatred is aggravated by Dobbs and his kind."
The Internet Turns 40
Posted by , Agence France Presse on October 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM.
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Technology and media stars, pundits and entrepreneurs joined the Internet's father to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his culture-changing child.
"It's the 40th year since the infant Internet first spoke," said University of California, Los Angeles, professor Leonard Kleinrock, who headed the team that first linked computers online in 1969.
Kleinrock led an anniversary event at the UCLA campus that blended reminiscence of the Internet's past with debate about its future.
"There is going to be an ongoing controversy about where we have been and where we are going," said Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the popular news and blog website that bears her name.
"It is not just about the Internet; it is about our times. We are going to need desperately to tap into the better angels of our nature and make our lives not just about ourselves but about our communities and our world."
Huffington was on hand to discuss the power the Internet gives to grass roots organizers on a panel with Kleinrock and Social Brain Foundation director Isaac Mao.
"The Internet is a democratizing element; everyone has an equivalent voice," Kleinrock said. "There is no way back at this point. We can't turn it off. The Internet Age is here."
Kleinrock never imagined Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube that day four decades ago when his team gave birth to what is now taken for granted as the Internet.
"The net is penetrating every aspect of our lives," Kleinrock said to a room of about 200 people and an equal number watching online.
On October 29, 1969, Kleinrock led a team that got a computer at UCLA to "talk" to one at a research institute.
Kleinrock was driven by a certainty that computers were destined to speak to each other and that the resulting network should be as simple to use as telephones.
U.S. telecom colossus AT&T ran lines connecting the computers for ARPANET, a project backed with money from a research arm of the U.S. military's Advanced Research Projects Agency.
ARPANET grew into what is known today as the Internet.
"It feels to me like the alumni meeting of the framers of the U.S. Constitution," Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow said as he addressed the gathering.
"There are a lot of people in this room who are honest to god uncles and aunts of the Internet. What you did is conceivably the most important technological event since the capture of fire."
Barlow, whose nonprofit legal organization fights for online freedom, maintained that Internet access is on the verge of becoming an inalienable human right.
"The reality today is that the Internet is like a new life; it is organic," said Regina Dugan, director of what became DARPA when "Defense" was added to the agency's name.
"It is inherently beautiful. It challenges us all to think about ourselves, about others, about ethics, and about the future."
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Wing-Nut GOP Rep Interrupts Hearing to Berate NFL Commissioner Over Rush Limbaugh Diss
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on October 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM.
Here, folks, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "legal issues related to football head injuries," are your tax dollars at work (via):
Here’s an interesting confrontation from a hearing on the Hill today between Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. King said he’d “scoured” Rush Limbaugh’s infamous comment that the media was giving Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb too much credit because he was black and found no racism in it whatsoever — Limbaugh, said King, was calling out the media for reverse racism.
King, as certifiably mad as any member of Congress, of course went on to whine about the injustice of Goodell being totally mean to Rush-bo and then turning around and allowing total sluts like J-Lo and Fergie -- women who dress trashily and sing songs with dirty words -- own shares of NFL franchises! (There's video to your right. No, not of Fergie and J-Lo -- of Iowa Rep Steve King complaining!)
Anyway, I think Limbaugh-NFL-Gate has pretty much been my favorite bit of wing-nut faux-outrage this year. I mean, the overwrought screeds about the death of free expression -- "Tonight Rush became the metaphor for all of us… every man woman and child in this great nation of ours." Or the delicious but ill-fated calls for a Tea-bagger boycott of NFL football. One commenter -- no doubt a "satire troll" -- offered this suggestion on a right-wing blog:
I never thought I'd say this, but "Thank God for Canada." Not only do they have a REAL conservative ruler, but they actually have a damn good Football league.
The Montreal Alouettes could beat the Vikings or the Broncos any day of the week.
I think we conservatives should just switch our allegiences to the CFL--the Conservative Football League.
That was rich comedy! And why not, with the right screaming 'liberal fascism' in response to a bunch of NFL owners -- mostly conservative businessmen -- figuring out that rush Limbaugh wasn't good for their brand?
Which brings me to my very favorite take on the whole brouhaha ...
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Palin's New Book Selling for Dirt Cheap: How the Right Wing Boosts Sales
Posted by Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America on October 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM.
Ever wonder how so many right-wing books become "bestsellers"? This may help explain it:
Normally you have to wait until the public displays pretty strong disinterest in a book before you can pick up the hardcover for $4.97. But thanks to Richard Scaife's right-wing Newsmax.com, you can get Sarah Palin's book for that low price -- and it hasn't even been released yet.
Just keep this in mind if the media starts breathlessly reporting Palin's strong sales numbers.
New Website Tracks Your Congressional Reps' Moves On Afghanistan
Posted by Katrina Vanden Heuvel, TheNation.com on October 26, 2009 at 8:40 AM.
President Obama will soon make what could be the defining decision of his presidency. The course he chooses in Afghanistan will tell us a lot about the kind of country we will become during his administration.
We have already been fighting in Afghanistan for twice as long as we fought in World War II. In fact, the United States and its NATO partners have had more than 40,000 troops in Afghanistan since 2006 and have spent more than $300 billion on military and civilian operations. At this perilous moment, as we attempt to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the last thing we need is a "surge" of 40,000 more troops to fight on behalf of a corrupt and unpopular Afghan government.
Security in the United States and the region depend not on this misguided surge, but on commonsense counterterrorist and homeland security measures: extensive intelligence cooperation, expert police work, border control, and the surgical use of special forces to disrupt imminent attack when needed.
What is hopeful is that the majority of Americans have turned against the war.
The Nation's special issue on Afghanistan -- Obama's Fateful Choice -- published [last] week, takes on the rationale for escalation, challenges the White House to explore a broader range of options, and offers alternatives, including an exit strategy. The issue also offers ways to get involved to oppose this misguided and dangerous policy.
One new effort was launched today by five national peace advocacy groups representing hundreds of thousands of Americans -- a project called NoEscalation.org. The website tracks whether Members of Congress have taken a stand against troop escalation, and lists their phone numbers so constituents can call and ask their legislators to oppose it.
The website is created by CodePink, Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace. The groups are urging Americans to report back to NoEscalation.org about their conversations with Congressional offices.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Former Bush Press Secretary: Obama's Criticism Of Fox Akin To Chavez Tactics
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on October 26, 2009 at 7:30 AM.
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace made sure to devote plenty of time to covering President Obama's "war on Fox News"; he even played a clip of Sean Connery as Jim Malone in The Untouchables talking about "the Chicago way" of getting things done. Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino sharply criticized the Obama administration's tactics and expressed absolute shock at the example the United States was setting for "the free press in emerging democracies," comparing the criticisms of Fox News to when "Hugo Chavez shuts down television stations":
PERINO: That was a coordinated, calculated attack. It was unbecoming. And if you look at some of the coverage of what mainstream media covers when, for example, somebody like a Hugo Chavez shuts down television stations, he calls them illegitimate.
Now, I'm not suggesting that this White House believes that they are going to come over here and shut down Fox News. But they are defining a narrative in their first year, and it's going to be very hard to recover from it. [...]
Through our State Department, we are trying to help emerging democracies get journalists and government officials to talk to one another, because freedom of the press is essential to any democracy. Believe me, they are watching this, and they have -- surely are raising questions.
Watch it:
The Obama administration, according to Reporters Without Borders, is actually setting quite a strong example of press freedom for the world. In 2008, the organization found that in terms of press freedom, the U.S. ranked 36th out of 173 countries. Its report singled out "wars carried out in the name of the fight against terrorism" as a cause for the steep decline in press freedoms around the world. Just one year later, the United States has jumped from 36th to 20th. "Barack Obama's election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this," concluded Reporters Without Borders.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Another Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory About Obama Gets Pushed by Fox and Shredded by Reality
Posted by Simon Maloy, Media Matters for America on October 25, 2009 at 11:18 AM.
It really gets to be pretty pathetic sometimes, watching the conservatives grasp at every straw they can in order to attack and discredit a president they don't like.
If you listened to Rush Limbaugh today or visited Fox Nation, then you might have heard about President Obama's supposed college thesis in which the college-aged commander in chief allegedly wrote: "The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
Now, you might be thinking: "Wait a minute, I thought conservatives didn't like Obama's elusive thesis because it was on nuclear disarmament." Well, this is a different thesis, it would seem, and blogger Michael Ledeen wrote about it two days ago:
I missed this first time around. Brian Lancaster at Jumping in Pools reported on Obama's college thesis, written when he was at Columbia. The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein -- who wrote about it for Time -- was permitted to see).
So Ledeen sources this bombshell to another, more obscure conservative blogger, who wrote -- back on August 25, mind you -- that Time's Joe Klein had seen Obama's damning thesis and was going to report on it for "an upcoming special edition about the President." No indication was given as to how this obscure blogger came to know that one of America's premiere journalists had obtained this information. There was no indication as to how this blogger was able to quote material only Klein had had access to. Oh, and let's not forget that this very same blogger was busted by PolitiFact.com for fabricating stories about President Obama.
But hey, why speculate on whether it's true or not? Let's go to the source. Mr. Klein?
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Moron Wars! Michael Savage Trashes Glenn Beck
Posted by Lee Fang, Think Progress on October 24, 2009 at 12:53 PM.
On his radio show yesterday, Michael Savage took issue with the Obama administration’s accusations of partisanship against Fox News, calling the entire controversy a “kabuki play” generated for ratings and a bid for News Corporation (Fox News’ parent company) to expand business. Savage also took aim at Glenn Beck, saying Beck might soon be muzzled with a “bit in his mouth” by his bosses at Fox News. Savage proceeded to call Beck a dim-witted con artist:
SAVAGE: Within 90 days, he has got a bit in his mouth and he’s moving on to something else. [...] I’m not impressed by him. I’ve seen the act before. I’m not for him or against him, he does a reasonably good job copying people who are brighter than him who have done their work before him and taking as many ideas from as many people as he can without giving anyone credit. I get that. There’s nothing new about that either. But, my prediction is he’s got a bit put in his mouth very very fast and or he’s going to be fired.
Listen here:
Savage isn’t the only top far-right talker to trash Beck. Last month, Mark Levin, another top 10 radio show host, called Beck “mindless,” “incoherent,” and “pathetic.”
Peggy Noonan Recalls When Bush Wrapped Himself in His Own Failure
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on October 24, 2009 at 7:48 AM.
It's hard to have a simple response to Peggy Noonan's opening paragraphs this week:
At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency -- all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them -- was his. The American people didn't hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I'm owning it.
"I'm owning it." Noonan's partly right about that: after running scared on 9/11 and ducking the situation for a couple of days, Bush began on that Friday to act as if having presided over the worst act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil was a mark of virtue.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Anti-Dobbs Movement Overshadows CNN's "Latino In America" Special
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on October 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM.
Pobre CNN.
The cable news network hoped its "Latino In America" special -- a two-night "journey into the homes and hearts of a minority group destined to change America" -- would replicate the success of its Black In America series last year, which was watched by more than 13 million viewers. Instead, the series has been eclipsed by a growing controversy over CNN's resident xenophobe, Lou Dobbs, and an expanding movement to get him booted off the air.
Last Sunday, a headline in the New York Daily News read: "CNN's Ramping it's 'Latino in America,' But it's Getting Ruined By Lou Dobbs."
The report quoted Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a national pro-immigration reform group, who said, "the truth is that CNN already airs a nightly program on Latinos in America. It's called 'Lou Dobbs Tonight', and for 260 hours a year CNN provides air time for anti-immigrant distortions and anti-Latino propaganda."
A couple days later, the Associated Press caught wind of the fact that the much ballyhooed special -- it has its own Facebook page -- virtually ignored "its own commentator ... whose persistent advocacy against illegal immigration has angered many Hispanics."
The story quoted immigration activist Roberto Lovato, who calls Dobbs the "gigantic, anti-immigration elephant in the room at CNN."
"Rather than address him, they decided to just avoid the issue," Lovato said.
Lovato heads up Presente.org, which has spearheaded the movement now called "Basta Dobbs."
"Lou Dobbs uses his platform on CNN to spread myths and misinformation about Latinos and immigrants, even as his network is wooing Latino viewers," the Basta Dobbs website reads. "It’s time we said enough (that's "basta" in Spanish). Join us in calling on CNN to get rid of Dobbs!"
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Ross Douthat's Gay Marriage Moment of Truth: It's Embarrassing to be a Bigot
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise on October 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM.
Self-styled social conservative columnist Ross Douthat admits that he's uncomfortable discussing gay marriage in public because he opposes it for no good reason:
The question came from Christopher Glazek, a fact-checker at The New Yorker, who wanted to know whether Mr. Douthat and Mr. Salam believed that former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who has apologized on behalf of his party for the Southern Strategy, should also apologize for the Republican party's gay politics.
At first Mr. Douthat seemed unable to get a sentence out without interrupting himself and starting over. Then he explained: "I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public."
Mr. Douthat indicated that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, but that he does not like debating the issue in those terms. At one point he said that, sometimes, he feels like he should either change his mind, or simply resolve never to address the question in public. [NY Obs]
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Insane Neocon to Ron Reagan: Your Father Would Be Ashamed
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on October 23, 2009 at 9:46 AM.
Right-wing pundit Frank Gaffney was on MSNBC's "Hardball" yesterday, debating U.S. policy in Afghanistan with Ron Reagan. It didn't go well, but the heated exchange was really only part of the problem. (thanks to reader W.B. for the tip)
After Reagan rejected the neocon approach to the conflict, Gaffney made things personal. "Your father would be ashamed of you," Gaffney told Reagan. The former president's son replied, "You better watch your mouth about that, Frank."
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Video: Grayson: FOX News the "Enemy of America," Interchangeable with the National Enquirer
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on October 22, 2009 at 7:15 AM.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
On last night's edition of MSNBC's The Ed Show, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., was asked about the Obama administration's criticism of FOX News. Over the last week, administration officials, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, adviser David Axelrod, and Communications Director Anita Dunn have all painted FOX as "not a news organization," in Emanuel's words.
Asked by host Ed Schultz if the administration was wise to pick a fight with FOX, Grayson replied:
Sure. What you do with a bully is you confront the bully and the bully backs down. That's a good description of FOX News. People come on the air -- they insult them, as they did me, they cut off their mics, as they did me, they shout at them and they interrupt them, as they did me, and they curse at them, as they did me. And why would anybody think that FOX News is some sort of valid news organization like that? FOX News and the National Enquirer are basically interchangeable.
You know, FOX News and their Republican collaborators are the enemy of America. They're the enemy of anybody who cares about health care in this country, they're the enemy of anybody who cares about educating their children, the enemy of everybody who cares about energy independence, or anything good for this country, and certainly the enemy of peace.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Conservatives Hunt for 'Bias' in Health Care Polling Data Armed With Complete and Total Ignorance
Posted by Simon Maloy, Media Matters for America on October 21, 2009 at 2:19 PM.
Working at NewsBusters must be one of the cushier gigs out there. If a NewsBuster spies a bit of news that he or she doesn't like, all they have to do is write the equivalent of "OMG TEH BIAS" stretched out to a couple of hundred words. And they certainly don't need facts to form the basis of an argument, they just start from the premise that the media is liberally biased and let the conjecture flow from there. The entire enterprise is one big logical fallacy -- they start at the conclusion and work backwards.
Take, for instance, the new Washington Post/ABC News poll showing strong support for a health care reform bill that contains a public option. Clearly, a conservative outfit like NewsBusters wouldn't care for such a dataset, so they set out to discredit the poll with -- you guessed it -- accusations of liberal bias. NewsBuster Tim Graham noted that the poll sample was 33 percent Democrat compared to 20 percent Republican, and accused the Washington Post (but not ABC, for some reason) of "stuffing its poll sample with a few extra Democrats" to get the result they wanted. Mind you, he has no actual evidence that the Washington Post did this, he's just using the following logic, if it can be called that:
1) The Washington Post/ABC News poll sampled more liberal Democrats.
2) The Washington Post is part of the liberal media.
3) The liberal Washington Post rigged their liberal poll to get the liberal result they wanted. Liberal.
Accusing a polling outfit of cooking its data to achieve a predetermined outcome is a pretty serious charge. It's also fairly outlandish and can be easily dismissed with just a basic understanding of one of the fundamental aspects of opinion polling -- the random sample. Polling guru Nate Silver gave an excellent rundown of this very topic last fall when liberals complained about a Fox News poll that oversampled Republicans:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Pat Buchanan's Latest Racist Rant: "Traditional Americans Are Losing Their Nation"
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet on October 21, 2009 at 4:40 AM.
Wowsers.
MSNBC's resident racist, Pat Buchanan, has a new column out and it's a doozy.
It's titled "Traditional Americans are losing their nation."
And by "traditional," he means "white."
The tea-baggers, birthers, and, most recently, "Oath Keepers," are not racist, Pat argues. No. They, like him, are angry.
Why are they so angry?
Well:
"In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.
Note to Hollywood: Stop making those damn movies and TV programs that so viciously mock Christians and "traditional Americans." We need to go back to the Golden era of flim, the era of such classics as, I dunno, Birth of a Nation.
(Also, what the hell, U.S. school system? Who do you think you are purging religion from public schools like that? John Adams?)
Pat goes on:
They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on -- then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.
In Pat Buchanan's mind, all of this is happening, in that order -- regular conquistadors, those "illegals" -- and to add insult to injury, it's all being televised. Not only have they marched in to snatch all those things that rightfully belong to the original native REAL Americans, they have brought on the plague of reality television!
Finally, there's this:
They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.
There you have it: In Buchanan-land, Barack and Michelle Obama built their successes on the backs of hardworking "traditional Americans." (Just like that other "affirmative action pick," Sonia Sotomayor.) Sort of like that White House they live in, which was built by slaves.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Key Figure in AIPAC Spy Scandal Interrupts Sentence to Call for Regime Change in Iran
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on October 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM.
Last week, it was John Bolton advocating -- or kinda-sorta advocating -- a nuclear first strike on Iran at a GOP-affiliated conference on "ensuring peace." This week, the ironic-crazy continues with Larry Franklin -- the former defense official who pled guilty to 3 counts of criminal conspiracy for handing classified documents to Israeli officials and representatives of AIPAC -- arguing for regime change in Iran in the prestigious pages of Foreign Policy magazine.
Franklin was working in the Pentagon's infamous Office of Special Plans under Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith at the time he was busted. He and his defenders say he was just trying to circumnavigate the DoD bureaucracy when he gave the documents to AIPAC officials -- that he thought they could get his "concerns" about what he thought was the Bush administration's soft touch on Iran to Elliot Abrams, a fellow-traveller at the National Security Council. So while prosecutors said Franklin knew that the classified info he disseminated "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation," the AIPAC-approved party-line is that he was a victim of his ideological opponents' "criminalization" of the kind of horse-trading in tidbits of information that's routine in DC foreign policy circles.
Even if one accepts that account -- recall that he also slipped info to an Israeli official directly -- it says quite a bit about our foreign policy establishment when a Pentagon employee would think a lobbyist for AIPAC was the best conduit he had to his superiors in the White House.
Anyway, now he takes to the pages of one of the country prestigious foreign policy journals to claim that the months of turmoil following the Iranian elections somehow vindicates his actions. "Still serving my 10-month sentence," he writes, "I take little solace in the knowledge that my concerns were justified." (Sounds dramatic, but Franklin, who faced up to 25 years behind bars, got a slap on the wrist -- 13 months in jail which were later reduced to 10 months under house arrest.)
It's also unclear why the events of recent months absolve him of his crimes. Franklin says his goal was to "shake the foundations of Iran's mullahcracy," but all parties in the disputed election support the basic structure of Iran's "mullahcracy." And if he's just saying that the tainted vote proved the regime in Tehran to be generally cruel or corrupt, it's not like it enjoyed a good reputation in DC foreign policy circles at the time anyway.
But of course, the larger point of the column is to urge us all to finally follow his advice and overthrow the damn regime already ...
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
AT&T's Hilarious and Shameless Astroturfing (or Sock-Puppeting)
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on October 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM.
AT&T has a really good (and democratic) plan to undermine FCC regulations in support of net neutrality: pressuring employees to post anti-regulation talking points on an FCC website while hiding their affiliation to the cable company. Grassroots!
In an internal company memo obtained by Free Press, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President James Cicconi writes "We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet. It can be done through a personal email account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the "Join the Discussion" link." (italics added).
That should totally work, because ordinary citizens are often inspired to make impassioned pleas about ISP regulatory policy.
The memo also helpfully provides talking points "in addition to your own thoughts," such as:
America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?
An oligopoly totally lacking in transparency? Really, why mess with perfection?
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Ted Turner Would Fire Lou Dobbs If He Could
Posted by Linda Milazzo, AlterNet on October 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM.
Ted Turner would fire Lou Dobbs. How do I know? Because Ted Turner said so:
This excerpt from Ted Turner's April 1, 2008 interview on PBS, in which the visionary founder of CNN tells Charlie Rose he would fire Lou Dobbs, bears repeating:
Rose: Lou Dobbs used to be a friend of yours.
Turner: He's still a friend of mine.
Rose: Yeah.
Turner: But I think he's kinda flipped out. I wouldn't... Tom Johnson and I wouldn't let him do this when he was working at CNN. He just had to do the financial news straight, you know, and not fill it up with his opinions about who he hates and doesn't like the Mexicans and immigration.
Rose: So what would you do if you were running CNN today?
Turner: I'd call him in and chew him out.
Rose: You'd say either you tow the line or you can't work here?
Turner: That's exactly right.
Rose: That's what you'd do?
Turner: That's what we did before.
Rose: With him [Dobbs]?
Turner: Yeah.
Rose: Yeah.
The full one hour DVD of this Charlie Rose/Ted Turner interview was provided to me in the summer of 2008 by Phillip Evans, Vice President and Chief Communications Officer of Turner Enterprises. I've been monitoring Dobbs for years, tevo'ing his shows and observing his worsening narcissism. Dobbs is an anomaly on CNN in how he operates more in service to himself than in service to CNN. He stands apart from the network's other anchors in his rabid ideological rage and megalomaniacal self-promotion. Wolf Blitzer may be a drama-seeking nudge with annoying subject-ridden phraseology, but one could hardly imagine Blitzer tagging himself Mr. Independent and reading only admiring emails on-air, including demands that he run for President.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
The Scariest Part of The "Balloon Boy" Story
Posted by Lee Camp, AlterNet on October 19, 2009 at 8:35 AM.
Editor's Note: Last week, the cable news networks invited us all to gawk, in real time, as the bizarre tale of the "balloon boy" unfolded. The story hijacked news shows from CNN to MSNBC on Friday and into the weekend. This week the breathless media coverage continues. What other stories might be missed with all our eyes glued to this publicity stunt? Comic and political satirist Lee Camp takes this on.
Rahm Emanuel on Public Option: "It's Not the Defining Piece of Health Care"
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 19, 2009 at 8:01 AM.
WaPo -- White House aides reaffirm public option is not mandatory:
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in two television appearances [this weekend], noted that the public option could provide much-needed competition, but that "it's not the defining piece of health care."
Liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who is involved in the negotiations, said they will push for the government option to be included in the bill that goes to the Senate floor. "I haven't given up on this," Dodd said on NBC.
...Obama aides conceded that they may not have the votes in the Senate for the provision.
"There are people in the Senate -- Republicans and Democrats -- who have objections to that," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week."
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
George HW Bush Calls Maddow & Olbermann "Sick Puppies," Maddow Responds
Posted by Ari Melber, TheNation.com on October 19, 2009 at 6:00 AM.
Rachel Maddow invites Republican officials to appear on her show "every day," the popular MSNBC anchor said Saturday, but only about one out of ten take up her offer.
Those numbers suggest Congressional Republicans are especially wary of a Maddow interrogation, since most politicians jump at the chance to appear on prime time news shows with good ratings. The "incentives" to appear differ for elected officials and operatives, she said, and the show draws more conservative "lobbyists and P.R. guys," who are paid to push their clients anywhere they can. (See Phillips, Tim.)
Maddow's comments came during an appearance at The New Yorker Festival on Saturday, in a sold-out session moderated by staff writer Ariel Levy.
The forum also presented an opportunity for Maddow to respond to an unusual attack from George H.W. Bush.
On Friday, the former President said Maddow and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann were "sick puppies" who dished out "horrible" treatment to their ideological opponents -- and to George W. Bush. "When our son was president, they just hammered him mercilessly and I think obscenely a lot of the time," he told CBS Radio.
Maddow said she was "flattered" by the response. She said that the comments also drew a one-line note from her father, who asked if the barb meant that the former President watched the show.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Absurd: AP Asks, Is Obama "Obnoxiously Articulate"?
Posted by Ari Melber, TheNation.com on October 16, 2009 at 8:30 AM.
Political reporters have now toggled from worrying that Obama gets "too much" media coverage to asking whether he is "too" good at communicating through the media. Maybe even obnoxiously good. Maybe even -- here comes that loaded word from the primaries -- too articulate.
The A.P.'s Liz Sidoti is on the case. And this is from a news article:
Obama has been a constant presence in the mass media as he expands the bureaucracy's reach into the private sector.... In doing so, he has created a quandary. Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people's lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is -- in part because Obama doesn't stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?
What a quandary!
Once you "put aside" the actual facts and policy debate, there's that President talking on the TV about "his goals" -- and talking so articulately -- it just makes you wonder if the government is going to tell you how to mow your lawn. Or something. The article doesn't really try to support its own premise, as blogger Brendan Nyhan explains:
Sidoti is forced to admit later in the piece that she has no empirical support for her claim:
While Obama has been criticized for being too visible, AP-GfK surveys in the spring and summer found that most people say he is on TV about the right amount.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Rush Limbaugh Claims He Spawned Glenn Beck
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on October 13, 2009 at 8:01 AM.
There have been indications that Rush Limbaugh is growing jealous of Glenn Beck’s success. Limbaugh recently suggested to Politico that Beck’s promotion of the 9/12 march was “cheap and disingenuous.” In the second part of her interview with Limbaugh, NBC’s Jamie Gangel asked the hate radio host what he thinks of Glenn Beck. Limbaugh responded somewhat defensively:
GANGEL: Glenn Beck — do you worry about the new guy on the block?
RUSH LIMBAUGH: No. Look, in 1988, I’m the only national conservative voice. Now look at conservative media. Look what I have spawned. Glenn Beck to me is right on daddy-o. Glenn Beck is a result of my success.
Limbaugh’s attempt to take proud procreative ownership of Beck sickened MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch this morning. “What a megalomanic,” Deutsch said of Rush. “What a scary, distasteful human being he is.” Emphasizing that Beck and Limbaugh are in the business of “selling hate,” Deutsch observed, “Think about what I’ve spawned? Think about someone who even says that. Ick. Ick. Ick.” Watch it:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Politico Gets to the Bottom of the F#%&ing Story!
Posted by BarbinMD, Daily Kos on October 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM.
It looks like the kids at Politico decided to hold a contest to see who could write the most idiotic, non-story of the year. Ken Vogel won:
Those who pay attention to political rhetoric say an unusual amount of profanity has emanated from this White House – even without counting famously colorful White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. But before this statement becomes fodder for yet another partisan debate (with conservatives saying Obama is disgracing the presidency, and liberals that the media are once again being unfair), they quickly add that Team Obama is no crasser than administrations past. It’s just that they are being quoted more accurately.
But hey, credit where credit is due -- for an article so chock-full-of-stupid, it does raise a number of interesting questions:
Of course given the questions that it does raise, one might describe this article as thought-provoking. Or a pile of shit.
George Will's Wild False Equivalence: Furious Teabaggers Are Like Fans of Whole Food
Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune on October 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM.
It's speed humps. They are in such a hurry to get to the nearest Whole Foods grocery store that slowing down their Prius to go over a speed hump just plain breaks their patience. They've taken to honking as they go over speed humps, these liberals. They honk to annoy their liberal brethren who live on the blocks with speed humps. Hell, they've even been known to flip porch-dwelling liberals the bird from their Toyota Priuses as they go honking their way over the speed humps.
And the reason George Will brings this up is because it offends him that liberals have the poor taste to call access to health care a human right.
Another Right-Wing Media Fight! Scarborough v. Limbaugh Edition
Posted by Leslie Savan, TheNation.com on October 12, 2009 at 9:00 AM.
The good folks on the set of Morning Joe spent Friday morning dodging prairie oysters flung by the host at rival Rush Limbaugh, who had called Joe Scarborough a "neutered, chickified moderate." Rush had simply been trying to geld another Republican who dared criticize him, but this time Scarborough gelded back and it was not a pretty sight.
It all started earlier this week, when Scarborough ripped Rush for going "off the deep end" by jiggling with glee over Obama's failure to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago.
No forgiver of lese-majeste, Limbaugh hit back Thursday at Joe and "PMSNBC":
"I would be careful," Joe replied this morning, "if I had put my testicles in a blind trust for George W. Bush for eight years." He liked the image so much he painted it again, and again: "There are a lot of people on the right that in fact did put their testicles in a blind trust for the past eight years and stopped being conservative and started being apologists."
Eeew! on Joe's suitcase metaphor. But more eeew on Time.com's Mark Halperin and his rictal smile as it dawns on him that he's one of the apologists who Joe just sliced and diced.
More substantively, though, anybody who's been paying attention has to know that much of Scarborough's argument is laughable: Does anyone remember his principled opposition to the invasion of Iraq? Nope, because until relatively recently he was all for boots on the ground pretty much everywhere there's terra firma. And how can this former congressman-soldier in Newt Gingrich's Contract-with-America revolution (which shut down the government when President Clinton wouldn't slash Medicare funds) really claim that he represents a different kind of conservatism?
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
How to Make Sure the Maddow Show Survives
Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Comment Is Free on October 12, 2009 at 6:00 AM.
Rachel Maddow first came on my radar in the spring of 2004, when she, along with Lizz Winstead and Chuck D of Public Enemy hosted an early morning radio show called Unfiltered on the newly minted Air America, an attempt to counter rightwing talk radio with liberal programming.
Radio has this ability to make the listener feel like they share a secret with the hosts and the few, hard-to-know listeners out there. I hoped people tuned in to listen to the hosts trade jokes and talk about politics and music, and mostly I wanted other people to learn about this Maddow character, who brought to every episode a dynamic mix of sparkling good humour, intelligent analysis and a broad view of what issues should matter.
Unfiltered didn't make the first round of reshuffling at Air America, but Maddow hung in, hosting her own eponymous radio show and eventually moving to television, first as a guest pundit and now as a host of her own night time political talkshow on MSNBC.
Before it happened, most American liberals would have never imagined that Maddow could have her own program on any cable network, much less the same network that had, just a few years before, tried to pull in a rightwing audience by giving hard right nut Michael Savage his own show (before pulling it after he told a gay caller to die from Aids).
It's not just that Maddow is a liberal. After all, MSNBC had already given a spot to liberal commentator Keith Olbermann and his frequent, angry rants. It was mostly hard to imagine a cable news network rewarding a pundit for being sober-minded and nuanced in her analysis, as well as suspicion that homophobia would prevent it from promoting a lesbian who favours a more masculine way of dressing.
But 2008 was a year for re-arranging American expectations about who gets to have a voice in public. The Democratic candidate was not only black, but also overtly professorial, and this didn't diminish his popularity with the public. Hillary Clinton and, yes, even Sarah Palin normalized the idea of more female authority in politics. In a very short period of time, the unthinkable became the reality, and Maddow had her very own MSNBC program.
Maddow's audience is still small, but she inspires devotion in her fans, because she doesn't fit the tedious mold of most political talkshow hosts. Maddow openly identifies with the wild world of the liberal blogosphere, and even went so far as to wear pajamas on her show to cheekily demonstrate solidarity with bloggers after Palin denounced the netroots.
Like bloggers, Maddow knows that the key to building rapport with your audience isn't making yourself into an aloof portrayal of authority, but to show your human side and sense of humor. To this end, Maddow lets her idiosyncrasies become known, such as her obsession with classic cocktails.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Right-Wingers Believe Ayn Rand's Every Word, But They Forget She Wrote Fiction
Posted by Colin Greer, New World Foundation on October 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM.
Ayn Rand is popular again. Her most popular novels Atlas Shrugged from 1957 and The Fountainhead from 1943 are still being bought in large numbers. While it's plainly fashionable for right wing activists and pundits to bandy about her ideas to discredit the Obama administration, it's worth remembering one thing...
The American right sees Atlas Shrugged as an almost prophetic masterpiece that describes "the economic lunacy" of the bailout and economic stimulus plan. As Stephen Moore (formerly of the CATO institute) explains in the Wall Street Journal, the warning of Atlas Shrugged is clear - the more government tries to fix things, the more they break. "When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer," he says, concluding that the abolition of income tax would be a much better policy idea.
Two new biographies of Rand and maybe even a new film, are in the works. The cult of Ayn Rand has inspired think tanks like the Ayn Rand Institute, and The Atlas Society, and she has numerous followers in high places, notably including Alan Greenspan (former chairman of the Federal Reserve and soloist for the out-of-tune hymn to the inexorable free market). A copy of Atlas Shrugged may have been one of the more popular accessories at recent TEA parties.
Ayn Rand was an immigrant from Russia who worked in Hollywood as a screenwriter. Ironically, her followers nowadays tend to hate both immigrants and Hollywood. If I could run a mandatory e-harmony, I’d have Lou Dobbs meet Ayn Rand. I’d have Glenn Beck meet Ayn Rand. She's the lady off the boat who invented a powerful free market imagery for them.
But remember: She wrote fiction!
In Rand’s novels the heroes pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They made big profits in unfavorable economic climates. Try pulling yourself up by your shoelaces. It can’t be done. Its all story telling, with no basis in documented experience. And of course, she does not consider the collaborative context (school, roads, community) that make individual success possible. Rand's own life was a cauldron of broken connections, sexual indulgence, war on other people’s marriages, and narcissism of atomic proportions. Nothing new to show business. But pressing social issues are not show business. There is no real economics in Rand, and certainly no moral logic.
Black NFL Players ‘Wouldn’t Play’ For Limbaugh’s Team: ‘He’s A Jerk’
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on October 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM.
Earlier this week, the media reported that hate radio host Rush Limbaugh is involved in a bid to purchase the National Football League’s St. Louis Rams franchise. Many sports media figures lambasted the idea of Limbaugh owning an NFL team, with one writer saying it “would definitely hurt” the Rams while another said his “head exploded after hearing this Limbaugh news” because he is “a pungent bowl of stark raving bigoted lunacy.”
Now, the players themselves are piling on. Specifically, many African-American players have explicitly stated that they would never play for a team that Rush Limbaugh owns. “All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama’s America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting ‘right on,’” New York Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka told the New York Daily News, adding, “I don’t want anything to do with a team that he has any part of.” Other black players expressed similar sentiments:
[New York Jets linebacker Bart] Scott says players remember what Limbaugh said [about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donavan McNabb], and adds that the NFL would be wise not to allow the nationally syndicated host into the league.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Fox News Latest Dishonest Smear Attempts to Link Obama Official to NAMBLA
Posted by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos on October 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM.
Fox News -- joined by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Karl Rove -- has a new fantasy. This time, it's a supposed link between Obama's Dept. of Education and NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association:
Leaving aside the fact that Kevin Jennings, the target of their smear, isn't a 'czar' (he's the Department of Education’s Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe Schools), the Fox-Hannity-King smear is totally false.
Politico Tries to Link Roman Polanski to Obama
Posted by Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America on October 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM.
Behold the wonder of Politico. This beaut comes courtesy of Kenneth Vogel:
Headline:
Roman Polanski backers Gave $34K To Barack Obama, DNC
Lede:
Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.
BTW, it turns out that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is responsible for the biggest chunk of that $34,000. And oh yeah, Weinstein didn't directly give the Obama campaign one dime last year. So if you're keeping score at home and the "Barack Obama" reference caught your attention in the headline, in truth, Politico is suggesting that Polanski "backers" gave Obama $15,000 last year.
And Obama's campaign raised how much money for its White House run? Approximately $750 million. So, although Politico doesn't bother to spell it out, it's suggesting that Polanski "backers" were responsible for less than .002% of the Obama campaign's White House run.
And any of this is news because...why? Is Politico suggesting Obama and Democrats are somehow tied to the private causes of their donors? That Obama and Democrats need to return the money? That they're supporting Polanski? Is Politico suggesting anything of substance?
Nope, Politico's just pushing Republicans talking points. Why? Because Politico is a GOP bulletin board.
Bachmann: I'm comfortable with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck being the voices of the GOP.
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on October 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM.
Last night on CNN’s Larry King Live, a panel that included Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) discussed the impact and influence of the 24-hour cable news chatter. Bachmann once again demonstrated her true love for Fox News, arguing that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are gaining audiences because “people go where they think they’re going to hear the truth.” King then pressed Bachmann on whether she wants those right-wing pundits to be the “voice of the Republican Party”:
KING: Would you want the Limbaugh, that crowd — would you want them to be your voice as the Republican Party stands in this country?
BACHMANN: Well remember it’s who the American people are referring to Larry. And the American people are looking to voices like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck –
KING: I just told you — it’s 2 percent of America. It’s 2 percent!
BACHMANN: If you look for a critical mass, that’s the movement, that’s the direction that the critical mass is going. And the American people are very smart people.
Watch it:
Bachmann’s answer got a chuckle out of Larry King. “That’s funny,” he said.
The New Republic Attempts to Repent for Its 1994 Health Care Sins, Rips Into Betsy McCaughey
Posted by dday, Hullabaloo on October 6, 2009 at 12:00 PM.
The staff of The New Republic has begun to flagellate themselves with birch twigs over the reappearance of professional liar Betsy McCaughey as a nemesis to health care reform. Michelle Cottle wrote a long vivisection of McCaughey under the familiar title "No Exit," the same as McCaughey's 1994 article in TNR that managed to set conventional wisdom in the Beltway against the Clinton health care plan. You cannot read the reams of charges without concluding that McCaughey is a horrible woman, which I'm sure was Cottle's directive (though in McCaughey's case, it's not hard). Franklin Foer, the current editor, also threw himself upon the mercy of the court of public opinion:
As Betsy McCaughey returns to the scene for another fight against health care reform, New Republic editor Frank Foer is still thinking about the piece she wrote for the magazine 15 years ago.
“To me, it’s an original sin that I hope we can expunge,” Foer told POLITICO [...]
Indeed, the McCaughey piece has been a sticking point for TNR staffers for some time. And when Foer took over as editor in March 2006, the magazine recanted McCaughey’s article and formally apologized for it. But still, Foer said he “wanted to make it our mission to be on the right side this time” and pointed out that he’s “made health care reform a pretty important issue for the magazine."
Of course, Marty Peretz still likes her:
“I do not think Betsy is an intellectual fraud. Not at all,” Peretz wrote in an email.
“I have not read the Cottle piece and I do look forward to doing that,” he continued. "But the issue that McCaughey went after was one of the most intricate and economically challenging ones that America has faced, as we can see from the present debate.”
Aside from Peretz acknowledging he doesn't read his own magazine, there's a bias he displays here toward giving wide latitude to anyone who offers the conservative counter in favor of the status quo against something new and different. Peretz has studiously ignored 15 years' worth of discrediting McCaughey, including the recent charge that she coordinated her piece in TNR with the tobacco industry, who wanted to stop the Clinton plan because cigarette taxes partially financed it. The problem is that other media outlets have done the same. They have not only failed to rebut McCaughey, they have bothered to amplify her claims in the first place, as Jamison Foser points out.
There are plenty of liars in the world who nobody gets worked up about -- because their lies don't drive major media coverage about an important issue. That's what's infuriating about Betsy McCaughey: major news organizations give her a platform. They run her op-eds, they host her on television, they quote her, they allow her falsehoods to shape the public debate about health care. They do this despite knowing that she's a liar.
That's what's infuriating: that someone whose defining quality for the past 15 years has been her dishonesty about health care reform should be granted a role shaping the debate over health care reform by major media outlets. And, unfortunately, Cottle doesn't address that issue at all. How did TNR come to publish McCaughey in the first place? Don't they employ fact-checkers? Shouldn't they? How do her false claims continue to make it into print? Why do television news shows book her? What does it say about the news media that they grant McCaughey a platform? That's the important part. If McCaughey was just another crackpot spouting off lies and conspiracy theories while nursing a cup of coffee at the local diner, nobody would care.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Do White Teens Really Think MySpace is "Ghetto"?
Posted by Lauren, Feministe on October 5, 2009 at 10:15 AM.
Earlier research showed that the social networking choice between Facebook, MySpace and Xanga was based on the users' race, ethnicity, and education, with Latino students trending toward MySpace, white students trending toward Facebook, and Asian and Asian-American students trending towards Xanga. Interestingly, there were no discernable social networking trends for black students.
In the meantime, Danah Boyd discovered that white teenagers believe some social networking sites like MySpace are "ghetto" (their words), while others are "more cultured" (again, their words), which dictated why one SNS gets used more often than the next. Boyd explains,
It wasn't just anyone who left MySpace to go to Facebook. In fact, if we want to get to the crux of what unfolded, we might as well face an uncomfortable reality ... What happened was modern day "white flight." Whites were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. The educated were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those from the suburbs were more likely to leave or choose Facebook. Those who deserted MySpace did so by "choice" but their decision to do so was wrapped up in their connections to others, in their belief that a more peaceful, quiet, less-public space would be more idyllic.
Now a new consumer behavior analysis firm has completed additional research confirming that digital migration is taking place on SNS primarily along class lines.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
When Conservatives Attack! David Brooks Takes On Glenn Beck
Posted by Ari Melber, TheNation.com on October 5, 2009 at 7:00 AM.
Perhaps we still do not understand the current Obama backlash.
David Brooks caused a small stir on Friday by arguing that conservative radio hosts are, paradoxically, a lot like well-behaved children. They are seen – splashed across magazine covers and endlessly profiled – but not heard, politically, since they do not swing elections.
"The talk jocks can't even deliver the conservative voters who show up at Republican primaries," Brooks observed, reminiscing about how McCain's media detractors could not stop him in South Carolina last year.
After the summer of townhalls and what's shaping up as the autumn of Glenn Beck, however, it is hard to see things through Brooks' bifocals. Besides, as the top conservative at the Times and an alumnus of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, Brooks is peering out from within the conservative media ecosystem. He is, unavoidably, in direct competition for opinion leadership with the "talk jocks" he knocks. Which makes it especially odd for him to apply an electioneering metric to opinion media.
Even the proudest pundits would shrink from the notion that they swing elections. (Rush Limbaugh is probably the only exception.) Most members of the activist conservative media machine do not define their success by electoral results. And that is one reason they look so successful right now.
It is no accident that the two biggest forces countering the new President do not practice electoral politics. The opposition party may whither, but there is still the movement and the man. Both have the Obama administration's attention.
"We have something new in our political life," Michael Tomasky recounts in an excellent essay in the latest New York Review of Books, a "right-wing street-protest movement." The people who commandeered those August town halls and, feeling the thrill of direct action, gathered to create their own Washington rally in September – they are against something. Obama. Taxes. Government. Socialism. Treason. Nazism. Scan those signs they carried around the National Mall, and you see a bizzaro album of the people they detest and the threats, both real and imagined, that they fear.
There were few signs for alternative policies, let alone the alternative political party. The same is true, naturally, for their leader.
Glenn Beck has a long list of concerns about the country's direction. Yet since Obama's election, his most successful efforts have focused on attacking members of the administration and (putative) allies. He is trying to stop Obama, not jump-start the mid-terms.
Congressional Republicans have not exactly distinguished themselves for an enlightened posture towards the new President, but to be fair, even they do not share all of Beck's obsessions.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Right-Wingers Still Able to Dictate What Constitutes the "Big Story" of the Day
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on October 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM.
David Shuster just committed one of those beltway gaffes that inadvertently exposes their real sense of priorities:
The President: ... whenever I see statistics like the one we saw today, my mind turns to the people behind them --- honest, decent Americans who want nothing more than the opportunity to congtribute to the country and help build a better future for themselves and their families... building an economy of the future will not happen overnight. But we will build it. On that I am both confident and determined. And on behalf of every American I will continue in that effort each and every day for as long as I am in this White House. Thank you very much everybody.
Shuster: That was President Obama at the White House talking in the end there about the unemployment figures. The unemployment again rate shooting up to 9.8%, short of the 10% that some had feared. But the numbers were worse than expected. But the big news, of course, is that over the last 18 or so hours president Obama has been on this journey to Copenhagen and back. He lobbied hard along with the first lady Michelle Obama, for the Olympics ....
He went on to say that conservative talk show hosts say that Obama hurt the prestige of the presidency, which is a huge problem that we should all be concerned about. he promised a long debate on the subject.
Then he went on to talk about John Ensign's mistress and her husband. And David Letterman.
*In case you actually care about that boring job story,
this will give you a good idea of just how awful it really is. This too. And this.
Now back to your regularly scheduled news.
Scarborough Calls Righties' Celebration of Failed Olympic Bid "Just Plain Stupid"
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on October 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM.
A surprising number of conservatives are doing a happy-dance over the fact that the United States will not host the Olympic summer games in 2016. As far as I can tell, their glee is driven entirely by their hatred of President Obama -- Chicago is his hometown, and therefore undeserving.
Joe Scarborough, of all people, is defending the president.
Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama's hometown will not be hosting the 2012 Olympic Games.
Chicago is a beautiful city that would have made a perfect backdrop for the Olympics. The President was right to fly to Copenhagen to try to land the games, not for the sake of his city, but for the good of his country. The fact President Obama failed makes me respect him more for taking the chance, and the fact many right-wing figures opposed the President's mission shows just how narrow-minded partisanship makes us all. [...]
[W]hat we saw from some conservative corners regarding the President's failed Olympics bid was just plain stupid.
I rarely agree with Joe Scarborough this much. When the Weekly Standard's office "erupts" in "cheers" -- as editor John McCormack wrote this afternoon -- it's hard to miss the oddity of watching Americans revel in America's Olympic defeat.
There are obviously far more important international developments than an athletic competition, but I honestly can't think of the last time I've seen so many high-profile Americans root so enthusiastically against their own country. Rachel Slajda has some of the highlights from prominent right-wing voices -- or lowlights, depending on one's perspective -- and it's more than a little depressing.
Former Bush aide advised Republicans to "resist the temptation to pile on about Chicago losing the Olympic bid just because Obama made the pitch," but he was ignored.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) added, "Someone should remind [conservatives] which team they're really on."
I remember a time when conservative Republicans claimed to have the high ground on unimpeachable patriotism. My, how things have changed.
Letterman Admits Extortion Plot; Sexual Liaisons With Staffers
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM.
[Trigger warning.]
Last night on his show, David Letterman took ten minutes to share with his audience the story of an extortion plot—including the writing of a fake $2 million check, his testimony in front of a grand jury, and the arrest yesterday afternoon of the extortionist—and also confessed, without details like when or why, to having had sex with female employees of the show.
Despite the idiotic headline, this piece very accurately summarizes the segment, which I found to be profoundly uncomfortable to watch, even knowing the content of what he was going to say. Throughout the story, he refers obliquely to the "creepy stuff" he'd done, over which he was being extorted, and the moment where he at last reveals what the "creepy stuff" was (at 7:40), the reaction from the studio audience is, well, rather creepy itself—even given all the relevant excuses for nervous responses, etc.
[The video's in the window to your right. Starting at 7:40]
Now, of course, we get to: What was it, what was all the creepy stuff [audience laughs] that he was going to put into the screenplay and the [book], and, uh, the creepy stuff was that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. [audience murmurs] Now, my response to that is: Yes, I have. [audience laughs] I have had sex with women who worked on this show. [audience applauds] And, and would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would. Perhaps it would. [audience laughs] Especially for the women! [audience laughs and applauds]
Part of the reaction is discernibly "Way to go, Dave!" from people who think it's great he's had loads of HOT SEXXX WITH CHICKS, but part of the reaction is palpable relief that the "creepy stuff" wasn't worse:
At least he's no Polanski.
No. Not according to him, anyway. According to him, it was just some consensual sex with some ladies who happen to work for him—as if that's incidental and not a major ethical problem, even if they weren't coerced by virtue of their employment.
I suppose such questions are easily drowned out by laughter at self-deprecating jokes about "Lutheran Midwestern guilt" and how embarrassing it would be for his conquests for people to know they had sex with him. Har har.
Jesus. I'm so done with this fucking week.
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
GOPer: Fire Those Lefty Labor-Lovin' Cops and Bring in Private Mercenaries!
Posted by Brad Reed, Sadly, No! on October 2, 2009 at 11:31 AM.
Editor's note: this is a satirical look at one possible future for Macon, Georgia, based on this real-world story from the past week.
I have seen the future, my friends, and it is hilarious.
Last night I was struck by a prophetic dream in which RedState doofus and Macon city councilor Erick Erickson has succeeded in his quest to save his town from the scourge of its police department. Join with me, friends, as we gaze into the crystal ball…
Erickson dissolves Macon police department
City councilor Erick Erickson today declared that his successful bid to abolish the police department in Macon was a triumph for free-market capitalism and for freedom-loving Tea Party patriots everywhere.
“Ridding our fair city of this pestilence will bring in a new era of freedom that will serve as a model for the rest of American to follow!” bellowed Erickson, who was dressed in his customary powdered wig and triangle hat. “Eliminating the police department is just the start of my bold agenda to downsize government in Macon. Memo to the firefighters: your asses are next!”
When asked who would be responsible for arresting and detaining criminals in Macon now that the city had no organized police force, Erickson blinked his eyes for five seconds before muttering, “What?”
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Right-Wingers Root Against U.S., Then Celebrate Olympic Bid Failure
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on October 2, 2009 at 10:44 AM.
Although the United States sent a high-powered delegation to make a last-ditch effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ruled out the Windy City today. Of the final four cities — which also included Madrid, Toyko, and Rio — Chicago received the fewest votes. In his speech to the IOC in Copenhagen today, President Obama tied the American dream to the Olympic spirit in his pitch for the United States:
[Chicago is] a bustling metropolis with the warmth of a small town; where the world already comes together every day to live and work and reach for a dream — a dream that no matter who we are, where we come from; no matter what we look like or what hand life has dealt us; with hard work, and discipline, and dedication, we can make it if we try.
That’s not just the American Dream. That is the Olympic spirit. It’s the essence of the Olympic spirit. That’s why we see so much of ourselves in these Games. That’s why we want them in Chicago. That’s why we want them in America.
Always looking for a way to bring down Obama, conservatives not only criticized the President’s 15-hour trip, but also spent this week denegrating Chicago, downplaying the Olympics, and rooting against America.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
The Lesson of Alan Grayson: When You Challenge These Bullies, They Crumple Like a Yugo
Posted by Jill C., Brilliant at Breakfast on October 2, 2009 at 10:17 AM.
Alan Grayson isn't giving any ground, nor should he:
I don't like Ed Schultz, but Grayson is awesome. He looks like an extra from The Sopranos, but he's smart as a whip, and he will not sit down and he will not shut up or be cowed by the likes of Michael Steele and Eric Cantor and the rest of the Republican fainting couchers. The Republicans ARE a lie factory, and their hypocrisy is positively jaw dropping. This is a party that has embraced the "birthers" and other crazies; a party whose own representatives have perpetuated the myth set forth by their Designated Idiot, Sarh Palin, that the government is going to exterminate old people...and now they're got their panties in a twist because a Democratic Congressman FINALLY has the balls to call them on their bullshit?
This should be a lesson to ALL Washington Democrats: When you actually challenge these bullies, they crumple like a Yugo.
EMAIL
PRINT
42 COMMENTS
PERMALINK
