Newt Gingrich was publicly embarrassed this week when he claimed on Tuesday night's The Daily Show that shoe bomber Richard Reid was Mirandized after he was arrested because he was an American citizen. The next day, Gingrich corrected his mistake -- Jon Stewart had done it first as he was wrapping up Tuesday's TDS -- via Twitter and took the opportunity to attack the Obama administration again.
On Wednesday morning, Gingrich tweeted:
On daily show was wrong re: ShoeBomber citizenship, was thinking of Padilla. Treating terrorists like criminals wrong no matter who is Pres.
Huffington Post's Sam Stein pointed out that Gingrich's claim that "treating terrorists like criminals" is "wrong" diverged from previous comments he'd made on Fox News in 2005 defending the Bush administration's decision to try Jose Padilla in criminal court.
Here's what Gingrich said on the November 22, 2005 edition of The O'Reilly Factor (accessed from the Nexis database):
JOHN KASICH, GUEST HOST: Newt, let's start with Padilla. You know, we were holding him as an enemy combatant. And then for some reason, they decide to transfer him over to some sort of a criminal court. Is -- I don't understand that. Is that a loss for the government here?
NEWT GINGRICH, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Well, I think if they believe they have enough evidence to convict him, going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be -- would hardly be seen as a loss.
I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They're not wearing a uniform. They're not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.
And so, we don't have a good set of rules. You see this with the McCain amendment that passed the Senate by -- with 98 votes on establishing boundaries in terms of not permitting torture. You see it in a project underway at the Defense Department. We're looking at what are the right ground rules.
And I suspect that part of what happened was a decision that they were in a stronger position both around the world and in the United States in terms of public opinion if they brought Padilla forward, proved they had a real case, and convicted him in a criminal court. That's my guess, but I don't have any inside information.
To sum up: During the Bush administration, Gingrich didn't think it was a "loss" to try Padilla in a civilian court. During the Obama administration, Gingrich claimed that no matter who the president is, "treating terrorists like criminals" is "wrong." Despite his protestations to the contrary, it seems it does matter to Gingrich who is president.
According to a February 11 NewsBusters post, Rush Limbaugh responded to an email requesting his reaction to being placed at number three on a Daily Beast list of the right's top 25 journalists with the following comment:
I don't deserve to be on the list. I'm not a journalist. I value my reputation much more than to agree to being a journo.
David Broder does not like politicians who lie. I know this because he said so himself, in an infamous 1998 Sally Quinn article about why the Washington Establishment was so angry at Bill Clinton for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky:
"The judgment is harsher in Washington," says The Post's Broder. "We don't like being lied to."
That suggestion -- that Washington, DC's elite residents take greater offense at being lied to than the simpletons outside the nation's capital -- is the kind of thing that would draw heaping piles of scorn from the political media had it come from a liberal Democrat. But it came from David Broder, beloved "dean" of the Washington Press corps, and so nobody said much of anything about his preening moral superiority.
Anyway: David Broder does not like politicians who lie. He does not like being lied to. Lying, according to David Broder, is a Very Bad Thing. So bad that David Broder suggested Clinton should resign because "he may well have lied to a federal grand jury." May well have -- the mere possibility that Clinton had lied about sex was enough for David Broder, who very much does not like lying politicians, to call for resignation.
Since I know how much David Broder hates politicians who lie, it was a little odd when he refused to call for President Bush's resignation, though Bush lied about matters far more grave than Monica Lewinsky, and though Broder denounced Bush as a "lawless and reckless" president who "started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution." I mean, if the possibility that Clinton had lied about sex was enough to necessitate his resignation, surely the certainty that Bush had lied, coupled with his "lawless and reckless" defiance of the Constitution should require nothing less?
I mean, it simply can't be that David Broder holds Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans, or that he thinks lying only counts as lying when it's about sex. Can it? No: That does not sound like the esteemed "dean." It can't be. Must be a fluke.
So, this morning I read Broder's celebration of Sarah Palin's virtues. Now, Sarah Palin, as you might remember, has built her entire national reputation on lies. From the moment John McCain plucked her out of obscurity in the summer of 2008 until the time she finishes her next sentence, she will have said little of any real significance that was true. Her repeated "bridge to nowhere" boast -- a remarkably enthusiastic and frequent lie. That bit about selling a state jet on e-Bay? Bunk. Her claim that Alaska produces 20 percent of America's energy? A lie in 2008, and still a lie today. "Death panels"? The lie of the year. You get the point: Sarah Palin tells lies.
But, oddly -- because, remember, he does not like being lied to -- David Broder didn't mention Palin's history of untruths in his column today. Well, I thought, Broder must have thought he had covered that ground often enough in the past that it could go unmentioned today. So I fired up the way-back machine and read all 23 Washington Post columns in which David Broder has mentioned Sarah Palin, certain that I would find numerous harsh denunciations of a politician who displays an open hostility towards the truth.
In doing so, I found Broder gushing over Palin's "deft humor and pointed questions" and wondering "Why in the world has the McCain campaign kept Palin under wraps" and praising her as "cool as a cucumber, comfortable with her talking points and unrattled by anything that was thrown at her." But that wasn't so shocking -- Broder did, after all, note in today's column that her tea party speech last weekend "was not the first time that Palin has impressed me."
But this part ... Well, this was a little surprising: Not once -- not one time -- in those 23 columns has Broder so much as hinted at Palin's dishonesty. Not even in a casual, polite "that wasn't quite true" kind of way.
Well, you could knock me over with a feather. I mean, David Broder can't stand being lied to. He told us himself. You remember: Back when he was talking about a Democrat, and the lies were about sex rather than everything else.
As we noted earlier, the WashPost's David Broder delivered an early Valentine to Sarah Palin in today's newspaper; the same day the WashPost reported that new polling data show Palin has never been less popular and less respected.
Unfortunately, Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had the same idea as Broder and chose today to publish this column (at CBSnews.com):
Is Sarah Palin Lucky or Savvy?
I'm not going to bother highlighting all the ways Ambinder details Palin's super-savvy-ness. You can go read the whole thing yourself. But keep in mind that, according to the latest ABC/WashPost poll, Palin has never been less popular. Even among Repubicans.
There must be a different definition of "savvy" I'm just not aware of.
UPDATED: It's contagious! Time's Joe Klein today:
It's Her Party: The Brilliance of Sarah Palin
Reporting for Newsweek from the Tea Party convention in Nashville, author Jonathan Kay ("I consider myself a conservative"), paints a rather damning portrait of the movement:
Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.
And behold the wonder here [emphasis added]:
Perhaps the most distressing part of all is that few media observers bothered to catalog these bizarre, conspiracist outbursts, and instead fixated on Sarah Palin's Saturday night keynote address. It is as if, in the current overheated political atmosphere, we all simply have come to expect that radicalized conservatives will behave like unhinged paranoiacs when they collect in the same room.
Amen to that.
From Jim Hoft's February 11 post, "Gateway Pundit 'Cold Reality' Photo Contest- Up to $10,000 in Prize Money":
Big government politicians and scientists were hoping they could convince people that their junk science was real. Then they could further control the energy industry through taxation and regulation. Unfortunately, for them the scam is falling apart right in front of their eyes.
So what better time for a contest?
If you would like to have some fun and make a little cash while you're snowed in then this is just the contest you've been waiting for. Here are the rules:
1.) Create a sign.
2.) You must then get your sign in a position so that it can be seen on TV.
For each local TV spot you will receive $100.00.
If a sign is placed on a national TV network the prize will jump to $300.00.
If two or three signs are on one TV spot then the prize would be divided by the participants.
The most original sign would receive and additional $500.00.
The funniest sign will receive an additional $500.00.
Contest ends on Sunday February 14, 2010.
Thanks to my anonymous supporter for coming up with the idea and fronting the prize money.
Give Matt Drudge credit, at least he's for trying.
I've been having lots of fun highlighting the GOP Noise Machine's reluctance to acknowledge that the world's attention is about to turn to the Winter Olympics in Vancouver where there's basically no snow because the region is suffering through an historically warm winter season.
That, of course, runs counter to the Noise Machine's beloved "brain freeze" meme about how climate change doesn't exists because in some places it's really, really cold and snowy this winter. They don't want to have to explain how an extended Canadian heat wave fits into that anti-reaons claim. (i.e. If climate = science, than what does a warm climate mean?)
So Drudge managed to find a news article, albeit from an India news source, that reports it's finally snowing in Vancouver:
That narrative certainly runs counter to news reports not from India (like from North America), which are quite clear that this will be, at least at the outset, a snow-less Olympics. Because there `aint no white stuff on the way:
METRO VANCOUVER - Rain and above-seasonal temperatures are expected to dampen the first day of Olympic events Saturday at Cypress Mountain.
In fact, here's the Weather Channel's weekend forecast for the opening ceremonies at the Winter Olympics:
Can't wait to see the Fox News crew explain how nearly 50 degree February days in Canada proves climate change is for suckers.
From Fox Nation on February 11:
From Ben Shapiro's February 10 syndicated column:
The environmentalist frenzy overtaking the Democratic Party and its left allies is just one symptom of a burgeoning anti-democratic wave among liberals. Even as the deep green crowd pushes forward with its anti-technology, anti-liberty agenda, first lady Michelle Obama insists that we now police what inner- city kids eat for dinner. Her "anti-obesity" initiative, spearheaded at LetsMove.gov, suggests that it is our responsibility to "ensure that all families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities."
What if not all families want healthy food? What if they prefer McDonald's? Surely the Food Police follows hot on the heels of the Green Police-already, liberal politicians are floating "fat taxes" as punishments for businesses that market unhealthy products.
The anti-democratic wave continues with the White House's utter disdain for anyone who disagrees with them on foreign policy. John Brennan, assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism, suggested this week that "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda." Hey, wait a second-didn't dissent used to be patriotic?
Then there are the White House's media lackeys, contemptible pseudo-intellectuals like Paul Krugman, who put on the soundtrack to "Apocalypse Now" and wrote this: "We've always known that America's reign as the world's greatest nation would eventually end ... The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government." That's the ticket! When the Dear Leader is in trouble, liberals are eager to dump one of the foundational institutions of republican governance.
The left is crying out for a friendly tyranny, whether it springs from the holsters of the Green Police, the Food Police or the Obama administration. Whenever there is backlash against their agenda, their first solution is to dismiss the people.
To that end, we the people are characterized as stupid, angry and easily manipulated. No doubt, we the people are stupid or angry or easily manipulated sometimes. But we are still the people. And we the people aren't made to be ruled by the iron fist of the know-it-all know-nothings who now occupy our nation's editorial boards and highest offices.
From Fox Nation: