Ailes Of Fox News Goes All In With Tea-Bagging Morons With Crazy Comments

Far-right extremist Roger Ailes of Fox News

Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News and a far-right zealot, is at it again with the talking points that his network has made famous: Barack Obama is socialist.

Fox News, which long ago divorced itself of any hint of objectivity, has now gone to openly cheerleading for far-right causes and candidates and against anything viewed as left of the political middle. The comments of Ailes, as documented by Howard Kurtz, are indicative of a man who is no journalist and essentially overseas a network that is a 24-hour right-wing propaganda machine.

This is from Media Matters for America:

Ailes: Obama was "told by the French and the Germans that his socialism was too far left." From Howard Kurtz' November 17 Daily Beast article:

"The president has not been very successful," the Fox News chairman says in a lengthy interview. "He just got kicked from Mumbai to South Korea, and he came home and attacked Republicans for it. He had to be told by the French and the Germans that his socialism was too far left for them to deal with."

The 70-year-old Ailes, dressed in a lavender shirt and tie, goes on in this vein, saying the network isn't singling out Obama for criticism but that its style "tends to be more direct" in challenging presidents. Then he offers this observation about Obama:

"He just has a different belief system than most Americans."

That seems a rather loaded phrase--different belief system--even if you strongly disagree with most of Obama's policies. It fits the view of those who are trying to paint the president as being outside the mainstream. But from the big second-floor office at Fox's Midtown Manhattan headquarters, it's the rest of the media that are using a distorted lens.

This is nothing new with Fox News, a network that now clearly is devoted to advancing Republicans, tea baggers and nearly all conservative causes.

Excellent Video: What If The Tea Party Was Black?

Chilling Poll Speaks To Increasing Xenophobia In The U.S.

Reading a recent blog entry, regarding Arizona's extremist anti-immigration law, on Think Progress was nothing short of disturbing.

Here is a brief excerpt:

A new NYT/CBS poll shows that “the public broadly agrees that the Arizona law will result in racial profiling, overburden local and state law enforcement agencies, and decrease illegal immigrants’ willingness to report crimes for fear of deportation.” Nevertheless, a slim majority of Americans still supports it ...

This is a sad state of affairs, but shows the paranoia of people who see the demographics of the country changing ... the browning of America.

CNN Mischaracterized As A 'Liberal Media Outlet' On Booker Rising

The anatomy of a misguided statement from the Booker Rising blog:

Asks liberal media outlet CNN, about alleged racial insensitivity. Included in its article are two black conservative Republicans, who are no strangers to regular Booker Rising readers. "Lenny McCallister is African-American, a Tea Party member and a conservative Republican. He says Republicans 'have to speak out against this stuff because it does not fit our principles, morals or values. At the same time we cannot alienate the most active aspects of the conservative base at this time.' He’s calling on conservatives to help the Republican Party walk that tightrope in a way they did not in 2009."

CNN is far from a liberal media outlet. In fact, CNN at times bends over backward to accommodate guests with a variety of opinions and bends over backward to balance its discussion panels.

To refer to CNN as a "liberal media outlet" as the blog Booker Rising did is ridiculous. It seems almost a spiteful reply to the obvious fact that Fox News is a right-wing outlet (to be fair: MSNBC's prime-time commentators are to the left).

NRCC Words Certainly Are Racially Tinged In Attacking Rep. Charlie Rangel

The National Republican Congressional Committee is fooling no one with its weakly disguised racial attack on New York Congressman Charlie Rangel.

Rangel, obviously, is in major hot water these days. And, it’s clear that his troubles feel like ideal ammunition for Republicans to use as they launch an attack.

But, as MSNBC’s David Shuster points out, there seemed to be a racial motivation in a recent attack on Rangel by the NRCC.

Here is the transcript from MSNBC as posted by the right-wing outfit NewsBusters:

SHUSTER: I want to ask you about some of the criticism of Governor Paterson, particularly the National Republican Campaign Committee. They issued a very provocative press release over the weekend. They attacked Charlie Rangel. And we mentioned Charlie Rangel and David Paterson and the problems in New York. But, they mention Charlie Rangel as “the crooked Harlem Democrat.” They could have called him the crooked, New York Democrat. They could have called him a crooked Democrat. Why crooked Harlem Democrat? And did you see that as being racially tinged?

DOUG WILDER (former governor of Virginia): Well, this isn’t the first time that these people have reached beyond and over the top. Look at the ad that was being run by the Finance Committee, so-called Finance Committee in the Republican National Committee, depicting the President in the most unflattering capacity that they did showing his picture in grease paint, et cetera. You’re absolutely right. Were they trying to send that message? Was it racially tinged or not is not the issue. The issue is, could it be interpreted that way? And if it could be interpreted that way, don’t do it. You can say any number of things about what he’s done without having to it even have the inference of race at all.

SHUSTER: Former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder, thank you for joining us today. Nice to see you.

Here is one excerpt from a story posted on the NRCC Web site:

Notoriously corrupt Harlem Democrat Charlie Rangel’s recent admonishment by the House Ethics Committee has caused a stir among the nervous House Democrats who have accepted the Ways and Means Chairman’s tainted campaign contributions. Now, Democrats like Michael Arcuri have found themselves in the eye of an ethical storm. Not only has Arcuri accepted $14,000 in dirty campaign funds, but he has twice voted to sweep his party’s corruption problems under the rug by letting Rangel off the hook. With House Democrats quickly abandoning the embattled chairman, will Arcuri finally follow suit?

Here is the other excerpt from the same NRCC story posted on its Web site:

“Charlie Rangel has been embroiled in an ethical storm for years, but that hasn’t stopped Michael Arcuri from lining his campaign coffers with his tainted money,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Now that Rangel has finally been busted for his ethical wrongdoings, Arcuri has egg on his face for repeatedly protecting the embattled chairman. After accepting $14,000 in tainted campaign donations from the Harlem Democrat and twice voting to let him off the hook, Arcuri is tied to this scandal whether he likes it or not. Will Arcuri try to salvage what’s left of his political career and finally abandon Rangel and his campaign money?”

Are you still having a hard time with accusations of an element of race in these charges?

If Republicans want to call him crooked … whatever. But, the emphasis on Harlem (with the racial baggage that comes with it) is difficult to ignore.

Media Matters for America counters the expected argument of “what’s wrong with calling him a ‘corrupt Harlem Democrat?’”

Here is part of the counter by MMA:

This NRCC press release criticizing Rep. Suzanne Kosmas doesn’t refer to her as a “New Smyrna Beach Democrat.” This one criticizing Rep. Michael McMahon for not calling for Rangel’s resignation refers to McMahon as a “New York Democrat” rather than a “Staten Island Democrat” — even as it calls Rangel a “Harlem Democrat.” This release twice calls Rangel a “Harlem Democrat,” but this one about Earl Pomeroy doesn’t say anything about a “Bismark Democrat,” and so on.

It does make you wonder what was in the hearts and souls of the people who wrote and approved that NRCC press release.

Father Michael Pfleger Makes An Interesting Point About Bill O’Reilly

I read the comment (below) from Fr. Michael Pfleger, who has been targeted by far-right conservatives like Fox News commentator (not fair and balanced journalist or journalist at all for that matter) Bill O'Reilly because he can be somewhat used as a way of attack President Obama. First off, none of these conservatives gave much of a rat's tail about Pfleger or Rev. Jeremiah Wright until they saw them as ways of attacking Barack Obama during his candidacy to become president of the United States.

Anyway, fast forward to the present, the time since the historic election of 2008, and right wingers like O'Reilly continue to target Pfleger, Wright and Minister Louis Farrakhan as ways of attacking black people or portraying blacks as being racist (note: yes, I do realize that Pfleger is a white man, but not a lot of conservatives see him in that way).

I found this quote from Pfleger at News Hounds: "O'Reilly doesn't want to hear the truth we speak," Father Pfleger said, " . . . I'll hang around Wright and Farrakhan any day rather than O'Reilly."

Who Pfleger chooses to hang with is his business (in no way, shape or form do I subscribe to the theories that Pfleger or Wright are anywhere close to racist as people), but, the underlying message in his quote is an important one. O'Reilly doesn't want to hear the truth about issues regarding race. He, like many conservatives, live in this laughable utopia where all people of all races are equal, the battle for civil rights was one and it's a completely level playing field.

Sure, these right wingers will utter the customary, "sure racism still exists," but every example you give of racism they deny it is racially motivated.

The Politics Of Personal Destruction Again Target President Obama

It’s an old saying these days, but once again the “politics of personal destruction” are back and the target this time is President Obama. Blogger Sandra Rose has an entry that discusses someone purported to be a college acquaintance (John C. Drew) of President Obama. Drew spots off the same old stuff we’ve heard people use to attack President Obama: Marxist, America as the enemy, yadda, yadda, yadda. There are also YouTube video clips from “Breitbart.tv” to further illustrate the FAR-right agenda at play here.

Here is an excerpt from Rose’s blog:

According to Drew, in 1980 Obama saw America as “the enemy” and he predicted a future where the people would “rise up” and “overthrow the government.”

A CNN poll out today shows that the majority of voters don’t think Obama will be reelected to a 2nd term.

An argument could be made that Obama was a young, impressionable, idealistic college student in 1980. But the facts prove that Obama still embodies the same communist/Marxist ideals that he was so passionate about in his college days.

Couple that with the fact that Obama refuses to release his college transcripts from Occidental which, some say, proves his participation in Marxist groups on campus.

Same old stuff: Marxist, socialist, communist …

What are the “facts” that will show us he “still embodies the same communist/Marxist ideals that he was so passionate about in his college days” for the people to see?

Just because people advance a smear over and over again (with either minimal evidence or no evidence to support it) does not make it true.

Misguided Republican Wrong About President Obama’s Polling Woes

Republicans believe some of President Obama's political woes are essentially because he is this radical, socialist and far left politician unwilling to work with the GOP.

Consider this blog entry (I am not necessarily saying this writer is asserting the above):

Ouch! The Hill is reporting that a CNN poll shows that 52% of Americans say Obama does NOT deserve a second term. Only 44% say they would vote for him again. This is true for both all Americans and registered voters.

Fifty two percent is almost the number that voted for all that Hopey Changey nonsense in the first place. Obama’s does have some “hope”. He can either move to the center on his own improving his reelection chances or he can be saddled with a Republican controlled Congress that will make the move for him. Other than that, Obama is looking very much like Jimmy Carter 2.0.

The "Hopey Changey" thing is cute, but overall this is misguided thinking.

I know our Republican friends want to reach back for Jimmy Carter comparisons, but they would be quite foolish to do so for a couple of reasons: Frankly, many of today's voters probably know painfully little about President Carter other than perhaps understanding he is a former president . They would be grossly underestimating President Obama.

It also is misguided because President Obama's struggles actually are due to the fact that he has moved too far to the right in an effort to reach out to Republicans who have become and will remain (as long as Obama is in the White House) the party of "NO."

Progressives that believed we would pull out of the deadly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, restore the worldwide respect of the U.S., rebuild coalitions with our allies around the world, lead the effort to rebuild the economy and push through domestic expected policies have become uneasy.

When President Obama reaches out to the people who elected him his numbers will go back up. They're waiting.

Fox News Excuse Making For Sarah Palin Begins

Most of us could care less about whether or not politicians use teleprompters or read it off a sheet of paper when giving speeches. I do find it interesting, however, the large number of people using this to attack President Obama (as if no other president has ever used a teleprompter or read a speech off sheets of paper). So, whether it’s Barack Obama, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton or gold ole former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, it really makes no difference to me how they deliver a speech. But, for some reason, it does seem to spark something inside of Sarah Palin who seems to be taking wild shots at President Obama (like a boxer in the final round down on points and needing a miracle knockout to win). Getting in front of the Tea Party nuts sparked something inside of her to go after the president again and prove that the Tea Party movement is little more than an extremist splinter group of the GOP.

Fox and Friends, and its Republican hosts, went on the defensive to defend Palin for using notes to deliver her speech (as just about anyone on Fox is apt to do when it comes to Palin).

Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade (all right wingers) go out of their way to do damage control for the Fox News newbie Palin and her campaign (which is in the silent phase aided by the network conservatives trust).

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose.

DOOCY: You do?

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose. Yeah, because I think it’s an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter. Reading off complete script written for you with every word in a sentence, and here she’s just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes it look as if she can just talk off the cuff and that she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went off to give a big, long speech.

KILMEADE: I am jealous.

DOOCY: I think she did — I think she did it because she probably does it a lot. I do that all the time.

KILMEADE: I personally am jealous, because I used to get in trouble if I wrote on my palms because my mom explained to me the ink would get through my pores and I would die. So I stopped doing that in the fifth grade.

DOOCY: Really?

KILMEADE: Why doesn’t she just — there’s nothing wrong with if she had a card. Just jot a card down — energy, taxes, hope, whatever it is. But — then no one has a problem. But to sit there and look at — do the interview and then look down at her hand, I think that is — it’s, like you said, Gretchen, before, folksy, absolutely. Down to earth. I can identify. But if you’re going to write it on your hand, why not just say, staffer, can you hand me a card? And then it would have been OK.

CARLSON: Like I say, I think it was on purpose. But anyway, we may never know.

Once again, Fox News comes to the rescue of their beloved Sarah Palin.

Check out how conservatives are rushing to the aid of Palin, who quit on Alaska (to make money selling books and gain publicity for herself) and yet criticizes other leaders for their leadership.

Apparently Serving The Government Is Not As Noble To At Least One Conservative

It used to be considered noble to serve the public or to serve the government in some way, but apparently those days are gone in the eyes of some conservatives.

Here is a comment from the blog Booker Rising:

Jennifer Burke, a conservative in Washington, writes on Facebook: “And there it is…..let’s increase the already bloated government by rewarding those who go into government service with a forgiveness of student loans in half the time than if they choose a different career path. (No offense to those who work for the government. I just think that kind of policy is plain and simply wrong.)”

Not sure how she proved that the government being bloated would increase. Perhaps these people would be filling jobs that already exist.

Frankly, there should be nothing wrong with serving your government as a way of encouraging graduates to want to give something back after working at paying back massive student loan debt.

This strikes as criticism for the sake of criticism.

Booker Rising:
http://www.bookerrising.net/2010/01/state-of-union-speech-bookerista_27.html

President Obama Talked About Jobs Lost During The Last Two Years

Here is an interesting little nugget, at Booker Rising, I found from a conservative writer attacking President Obama’s State of the Union speech:

Quentin Banks, a conservative in St. Louis, Mo.: “Did he mention the 4 1/2 million jobs lost under his administration in the last year? He didn’t? Surprise, surprise.”

Here is an excerpt from President Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 27:

But the truth is, these steps won’t make up for the seven million jobs that we’ve lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America’s families have confronted for years.

Since he mentioned the last two years I think the last year fits into that timeframe.

The Majority Of Blacks Lean Left, But That Doesn’t Stop Name Calling

I found this kind of interesting as I took one of my many daily travels through the blogosphere in search of interesting little nuggets. On the blog, Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope WITHIN The Black Community, I found this finish to a blog entry:

There are two names that one will never be called in Black America (OK – 3 now that I think about it)

1. “You are a left-wing extremist”
2. “You are carrying the water for the Democrats”
3. “You have sold out to Barack Obama where you care more about his political fortunes than you do your own permanent interests”.

Here are a few thoughts I had off the top of my head:

1. First and foremost, this is pretty much assumed of many black people (in and out of the media). Secondly, does the name Van Jones ring a bell?
2. Pretty much any black person who goes on television, as a liberal, is presumed to be carrying the water for the Democrats (so it doesn’t necessarily need to be spelled out explicitly).
3. Oprah Winfrey was nailed with this charge during the campaign by conservatives who became angry that she did not give Sarah Palin, then the vice presidential candidate, a forum on Oprah’s popular syndicated talk show.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Now, for the most part, these are indeed labels a lot of blacks do not have to fear, but that is mostly because many people simply assume all blacks are in the corner of Democrats.

A FEW SIDE NOTES: I am not sure that everyone would agree with Sen. Evan Bayh about the Democrats moving too far to the left. Some would say (considering the Dems gave in on aspects of health care, sending more troops to war, etc., that President Obama has moved too far to the middle and has upset his base). That is just something to think about with this kind of discussion. Also, keep in mind, Sen. Bayh is trying to position himself as a centrist for political purposes.

Simple Simon Conservatives Trace All Detroit’s Problems To A Familiar Boogeyman: Liberalism

Frank Lucas: Simple Simon-ass motherfuckers!
From the 2007 film American Gangster

Simple-Simon conservatives take great pleasure in attacking cities like Detroit and Chicago (right-wing Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham did that again over the weekend in an effort to take a shot at President Obama). However, for the purposes of this blog, I am choosing to focus on one of the many shots being taken at Detroit. Full disclosure: Detroit is where I was born and raised. So, as a native Detroiter, we are accustomed to outside agitators gleefully taking cheap shots at the city of Detroit. Since the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States, the city of Chicago has gotten a taste for how viciously some are willing to attack a city (as far as I am concerned, it was wrong when people attacked Texas to get at George W. Bush and it’s wrong when people attack Chicago to get at President Obama). Still, the business of attacking cities for political purposes continues and thrives in today’s United States of America.

The following is a brief blog (with a biased video) from Steven Crowder, writing for the far-right site Big Hollywood (a safe haven for some of the nuttiest commentaries and irrational theories you will find):

I know that some of you may think that the last thing Detroit needs is another hit piece. Granted, some could consider this video as THE hit piece. Detroit however, can serve as a valuable lesson to the rest of the country. It has been the perfect laboratory for leftist policies at work. The more you examine the policies of Detroit’s politicians, the more strikingly similar to this administration they become. The results… are shocking. Notice how I added the “…” for dramatic effect? I’m thoughtful like that.

Crowder is right on one thing: this is a hit piece with a dual purpose: smear Detroit and take a shot at the favorite boogeyman of the far-right freaks: liberalism.

The depth and breadth of the ignorance of this video is nothing short of staggering. It’s so one-dimensional and tired it makes the old Atari 2600 look modern.

This Simple-Simon conservative mostly ignores the biggest factors in Detroit’s decline (while taking great joy in bashing unions like the United Auto Workers … as conservatives love to do while favoring the rich corporate executives who run countries):

• Auto industry decline
• Auto industry mismanagement
• Economically depending too much on the auto industry
• White flight
• Racial tension (race rioting) … sparked partly by competition for jobs and housing
• Broken political promises (Crowder cites this, but only to attack liberals)
• Shrinking population
• Eroding tax base (a part of shrinking population and fleeing businesses)
• Outsourcing to foreign countries
• Relocation of major businesses to the suburbs
• The U.S. trade deficit

… on and on it goes. But, why focus on those factors when Earth-is-flat Republicans can simply focus on their favorite topic: liberalism.

He ends the video with a shot of President Obama painted on a wall to take another partisan cheap shot in this far-right video that is lower and more disgusting than some of the filth it filmed and focused on in Detroit.

That’s not to say Detroit has its problems because it sure as hell does. But this garbage video is nothing more than the exploitation of Detroit for political purposes.

NOTE: I am not posting the video, but you can visit the Big Hollywood site to look at it if you choose.

The Detroit Syndrome of Economic Failure:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/138341-the-detroit-syndrome-of-economic-failure

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit

Big Hollywood:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowder/2009/12/21/is-this-the-future-of-america-detroit/#more-283182

Limbaugh Refers To President Obama As ‘Boy’ … A Term Historically Used To Degrade Black Men

Whether you use the word “nigger” or you use the term “boy” the meaning is generally the same (even though one of the aforementioned clearly holds far more negative power). Rush Limbaugh has been in the news frequently with his racial (some would say racist) attacks on President Obama. If not racist, Limbaugh clearly is using racial politics to turn the United States of America into his vision for the future … the Divided States of America (a nation that is divided along racial lines).

In his latest effort at racial antagonism, Limbaugh now has taken to referring to President Obama as “boy” which is a historical term used by whites to degrade black men (a usage that dates back to slavery days).

I realize that some historically ignorant people will think I am flying off the handle. To those people I say this: Check out the history.

From Media Matters for America:

Limbaugh calls Obama “this little boy, this little man-child president.” While discussing what he characterized as Obama’s “attacks” on Fox News and “ambush” of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Limbaugh said: “People are finally standing up to this little boy, this little man-child president, whose primary — I think his primary job, if you will, in life has been leisure.” [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/27/09]

This is not an accidental use by Limbaugh. This is a far-right nut who has a long and dubious history of racial politics aimed at diminishing blacks in the eyes of his highly conservative audience. Is the word “boy” itself racist like the term “nigger” is considered to be? The answer is this: not necessarily. It all depends on the context and the user.

Here is another example from Media Matters of Limbaugh using the word “boy” to demean President Obama:

Limbaugh: “[T]he little boy president went out there and did something absolutely ignorant and stupid.” Referring to Senate Democrats’ plan to block funding for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center until a decision was made about where to put the detainees, Limbaugh stated: “I tell ya, this is cover for Obama, ’cause the little boy president went out there and did something absolutely ignorant and stupid, and he’s got to be covered for it now.” [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 5/20/09]

Again, this is no accident. This is an orchestrated effort by Rush Limbaugh to portray Barack Obama in a negative light by casting him as a black man using a term that, in this context, has racial overtones (negative racial overtones). Once again, Rush Limbaugh uses race to divide and, once again conservatives are silent as their leader further insults and degrades people of color.

Check out the Media Matters for America research on Rush Limbaugh’s rather dubious history of racially insensitive to racist remarks: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160044

Don Imus Is Back And Already Taking A Nasty Shot At President Obama

It didn’t take controversial new Fox Business Network host Don Imus long to make his first controversial statement with yet another piss-poor attempt at humor (you’d think he’d have learned something from his situation with the women’s basketball team of Rutgers a few years back). But, the I-Man is still old school, stubborn and with a distinct inability to avoid making idiotic and controversial statements. Imus hosted Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (arguably the most media-hyped presidential campaign loser in United States of America history) on his show and the two men shared a joke (one in very poor taste in light of how much conservatives whine about comments about former President George W. Bush’s involvement in 9/11). Apparently, Sen. McCain was quite amused by a joke comparing President Obama to the 9/11 attacks:

“Ha ha,” she added dryly, when I told her that Imus, in a discussion with another first-day guest, Sen. John McCain, repeated a “joke” that after 9/11 “President Obama was the second attack on America.” (McCain, on the phone, laughed more heartily.)

As Think Progress points out, Imus must have had his conscience return (if he has one) after making telling the “joke” on the air as he tried to walk back from the comment and weakly offered about the joke that it was “an idiotic thing to say.”

Washington Times Seems To Make Up Racism Charge In Its ACORN Story

Like Media Matters for America, I too was puzzled by the accusation that ACORN representative Bertha Lewis charges of racism against individuals critical of the group. Note the headline from the Washington Times below, as captured by MMA: “ACORN’s Lewis suggests opponents are racist.” So, when I see such an explosive headline, my first reaction is … “I can’t wait to see the mountain of evidence the reporter and newspaper have compiled to substantiate such a powerful charge. But, as you might expect, I was woefully disappointed by an article absent of the necessary information to support its unsubstantiated header.

Below is The Washington Times article as posted by Media Matters:

ACORN’s Bertha Lewis charged Tuesday that accusations about the embattled community organizing group are racist, alleging that a coordinated political effort started by former Bush adviser Karl Rove sought to stop the group from registering minority voters.

“For many years, there’ve been folks who’ve disagreed with our ideology or methodology that [have] gone after us,” Mrs. Lewis, ACORN’s chief executive officer, said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington.

“I mean we, [going back] to 2004, we now see through e-mails from Karl Rove from the previous administration that ACORN itself was targeted, targeted to go after us so that we would stop doing voter registration because it was said that we were moving too many minorities to vote, changing the power dynamics on the local election and that we needed to be stopped.”

She also labeled as racist the infamous videos that show ACORN workers advising a man and young woman posing as pimp and prostitute how to circumvent the law. “These new filmmakers, [James] O’Keefe himself, told The Washington Post, ‘They’re registering too many minorities; they usually vote Democratic; somebody’s got to stop them,’” Mrs. Lewis said.

But Mrs. Lewis did not mention that The Post was forced to issue a later correction on the story, saying the quote attributed to Mr. O’Keefe was inaccurate.

But, as Media Matters points out, it’s difficult to see the evidence in the story that supports the headline.

Now, I know what people are going to say … the Washington Times is basing its misleading (if not inaccurate) headline on her comment about some opposition being troubled by the registration of “too many minorities.” But, the explosiveness of the headline does not match the thin (damn-near invisible) evidence supplied by The Washington Times.

This newspaper saw a book of matches on a table and immediately screamed “FIRE!” Notice the paper ignored the political angle that was in the same sentence it latched onto for the headline.

The paper’s supporting facts are weak next to the headline’s charge in what appears to be an example of poor and blatantly-biased journalism.

First For President Barack Obama: Conservatives Act Like He Is First Leader To Lobby For Olympics

As we know all too well, Barack Obama is considered the first black president (the first non-white male) of the United States of America. It was a historic first, but it appears some conservatives do not think it was the last historic first for the new president. It seems many conservatives are just plain up in arms over the belief Barack Obama now has become (are you ready for this?) the first president to ever go overseas and lobby to host the Olympics.

I mean … surely no other president or leader of a nation has done that before. Perhaps conservatives see this as another case of President Obama getting uppity and acting like he is … the president? Hmm. What could be going through this man’s mind … acting like he is president of the United States of America and fighting for the people of the nation he leads.

From Think Progress:

Brazil, Spain, and Japan — the other three 2016 finalists — all sent their country’s leaders to Copenhagen, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out on NBC’s Meet the Press today. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks said that he was proud Obama had “put his country ahead of his own personal prestige”:

MADDOW: In 2012, London got the Olympics after Blair tried for them. In 2014, Russia got them after Putin tried for them, and in 2016, all four finalists sent their head of government or head of state to make the argument. Obama did nothing unreasonable, and it would have been a shock if Chicago won. For them to be cheering America’s loss here on the right, I think is sort of disgusting. [...]

BROOKS: Nonetheless, I have to say, I’m with Obama on this. He took a risk, he comes away somewhat humiliated, but he took a risk for his town, he took a risk for his country, he put his country ahead of his own personal prestige, and he lost one. I actually don’t mind it. I think he was all right on this.

We should be all proud of the work so many people from the U.S. Olympic Committee and elsewhere did to try and bring the Olympics of 2016 to the U.S. Obviously, a lot of conservatives were rooting against the U.S., but the greatness of the country will win out over the self-interested conservatives who seem only believe strongly in patriotism when a Republican is in the White House.

Congratulations to Brazil, but shame on those in the U.S. who rooted against their country due largely to political bias.

Rep. Steve King Of Iowa Pleased With His Vote Against Aid For Katrina Victims

This article from Think Progress highlights one of the more pitiful politicians in this country.

Rep. Steve King, who is from Iowa and is one of the far-right extremists in the Republican party, has come out with yet another appalling statement that spits in the face of the horrors of Hurricane Katrina and its many victims. While many politicians swell with pride related to the good things they can do to help their country and to help people in need overcome tragedies, this man takes the opposite viewpoint. Sadly, there are people voting for this disgraceful man who routinely makes outrageous statements and thumbs his nose and what he seems to view as lesser people or dumb people (as far too many people have called the victims of Hurricane Katrina) or morally corrupt people. This is how far too many in our society think of people who they see as beneath them. Some people feel like they can’t be on top unless they’re standing on the neck of someone who is under them. King was one of only 11 members of Congress to vote against the $52 billion aid package (one that was passed unanimously by the Senate).

Here is part of what King said to The Hill as he reveals his proudest moment as a lawmaker:

THE HILL: What vote would you like to redo?

KING: I don’t really go back and re-live that sort of thing. Some of the big votes that I’ve thought about, some of the jury’s still out. And at this point, maybe I’d answer that question another way, probably the singular vote that stands out that went against the grain, and it turns out to be the best vote that I cast, was my “no” vote to the $51.5 billion to [Hurricane] Katrina. That probably was my best vote. But as far as doing something different again, I don’t know.

Think Progress adds this nugget:

Media Matters Action Network’s Matt Finkelstein writes, “Katrina killed 1,464 in Louisiana alone and uprooted the lives of countless others all over the gulf region. Yet, King says this was his ‘best’ moment in Congress. Not fighting for ‘conservative principles’ like smaller government, lower taxes, or a strong national defense — no, he’s most proud of opposing relief for victims of a catastrophe.”

Nice of Rep. King to spit in the faces of these people who died and/or had their lives and everything they’ve worked for destroyed not once but twice. After spitting in their faces once, voting down this bill, he comes back and spits in their faces again by proclaiming how proud he is to have voted against this relief effort.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/22/king-katrina/

Fox News Beats Irony Into A Painful Submission

Fox News, home to right-wing news and opinion, recently sent out a memo to its people with “standards” in the subject line. As many of you know, Fox has effectively carved out a nice spot for itself in the media as the voice for the conservatives of this country and as media leader of the forces loudly opposing pretty much anything that is proposed by President Obama. But, Fox News is increasingly taking heat for its blatant activism for the causes for people far to the right of the political mainstream. Recently, after being busted leading cheers at what was in essence an anti-Obama rally (packed with tea baggers), the network apparently decided to issue a memo (one that is nothing short of ironic and laughable) to its employees.

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
To: 005 -Washington
Subject: standards

For those of us who have only been at Fox for a relatively short period of time, it’s useful to remind ourselves that, as journalists, we must always be careful to cover the story without becoming part of the story. At news events, we’re supposed to function as dispassionate observers, not active participants. We are there to chronicle the news, not create it.

That means we ask questions in a fair, impartial manner. When approaching interviewees, we identify ourselves, by both name and news organization, up front. We seek out a variety of voices and views. We take note of the scene in order to bring color and context to our viewers.

We do not cheerlead for one cause or another. We do not rile up a crowd. If a crowd happens to be boisterous when we show it on TV, so be it. If it happens to be quiet, that’s fine, too. It’s not our job to affect the crowd’s behavior one way or the other. Again, we’re journalists, not participants — and certainly not performers.

Indeed, any effort to affect the crowd’s behavior only serves to undermine our legitimate journalistic role as detached eyewitnesses. Remember, our viewers are counting on us to be honest brokers when it comes to reporting — not altering –the important events of the day. That is nothing less than a sacred trust. We must always take pains to preserve that trust.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please stop by.

Uh, we have a lot of questions, but we expect few meaningful answers and thus see little reason to stop by.

This is completely and utterly laughable as Fox News regularly spits on these hollow standards Sammon is talking about.

President Carter Has Harsh Words About Rep. Wilson, Tone Toward President Obama

Only Fox News would accuse President Jimmy Carter of playing the race card while (on a daily basis turning blind eyes and deaf ears to Rush Limbaugh’s almost daily racial rants).

Carter, the former president of the United States, had some harsh words related to Rep. Joe Wilson’s angry, hate-driven and irresponsible outburst during President Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress. Fox News, as you might expect, had a headline on its homepage that charged Carter with playing the mythical so-called “race card” with his comments about Rep. Wilson (Fox News links to an AP story with a more fair and balanced headline to describe the story, “Carter: Wilson’s Outburst ‘Based on Racism’”).

Here is a portion of the AP story Fox News posted:

ATLANTA – Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act “based on racism” and rooted in fears of a black president.

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.

“Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care,” he said. “It’s deeper than that.”

Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote for shouting “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last Wednesday.

The shout came after the president commented that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republicans expressed their disbelief with sounds of disapproval, punctuated by Wilson’s outburst.

I am not sure Rep. Wilson’s undisciplined and out-of-control outburst is directly based in racism (although he does have a bit of a checkered past relative to issues regarding race). But, I think it is based on a strong lack of respect for this particular president (the reason for that lack of respect is certainly up for debate), who merely is making proposals for healthcare. Rep. Wilson’s anger seems disproportionate to the kind of legislation that President Obama is simply proposing (as little if anything is actually set in stone). So, I think President Carter may be a bit off base with Rep. Wilson, specifically, but in general I think he is on the money with some of the more outspoken people on the far right as far as their motives are concerned.

This also is from the story:

“I think Joe’s conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the color of the president,” said Dick Harpootlian, who has known Wilson for decades. “I don’t think Joe’s outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth.”

Harpootlian said he received scores of racial e-mails from outside South Carolina after he talked about the vote on FOX News.

“You have a bunch of folks out there looking for some comfort in their racial issues. They have a problem with an African-American president,” he said. “But was he motivated by that? I don’t think so. I respectfully disagree with President Carter, though it gives validity to racism.”

I think that is more the issue: Rep. Wilson’s outburst emboldens the racists and far-right nuts who hated (or at the very least were uncomfortable with) Barack Obama the first time they saw him (long before anything came out of his mouth).

Rep. Wilson’s thoughts have inspired the haters and racists. Moreover, Rep. Wilson’s unwillingness to formally apologize for his disgraceful actions before Congress makes me think two things: 1. He is not really sorry for his actions. 2. He now is officially playing politics (by forcing primarily Democrats to reprimand him). 3. He is willing to be a martyr for those who hate President Obama.