Because yeah, an under-funded, non-profit org that helps poor people is just like the Iraq War's prisoner torture/homicide scandal that rocked the Bush administration, right?
According to today's LA Times editorial page it is:
Liberals still don't buy the Bush administration's explanation for the Abu Ghraib scandal -- that the humiliation and torture of prisoners at the Iraq facility was the work of a handful of misguided U.S. troops, not the result of a culture and policies put in place by those higher up the chain of command. Yet many seem willing to accept a strikingly similar defense by leaders of the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now following an attack by the right.
Behold the liberal media.
On his Thursday radio broadcast, Glenn Beck aired comments Rep. James Clyburn made on Hardball about how extreme rhetoric can "escalate," then yelled to cut off the audio clip. He then stated:
BECK: I'm sorry. I'm a little passionate about this because -- I'm a little passionate about this. Let's just put it this way: The FBI has been a part of my life for a few months, trying to protect me and my children. Beyond that, I can't give you any information. So don't tell me about threats, sir. Don't tell me about violence, sir. You're bringing these things up and saying we had to contact the FBI and they had to investigate. Try it the other way around, when the FBI calls you!
When you get a phone call from the FBI and they say, investigators need to meet with you, there's nothing -- nothing that feels better.
PAT GRAY (contributing editor): That it's not due to anything they're investigating about you.
BECK: -- about you.
GRAY: Yeah.BECK: When you have people threaten to do unbelievable things to your children, you better know what you believe. And believe me, it's a time when you feel very alone, because some of us aren't Congress. Some of us don't have the authority to do anything about it. We just hope and pray. And while we could escalate things, we do not. We try to defuse. Please don't talk to me about the brick through your window.
Beck's comments raise numerous questions, but one stands out above all: Is Beck thankful the Obama administration is protecting him and his family?
If the Obama administration was "after him," wouldn't it use the FBI against him? At the very least, wouldn't it at least look the other way if he was threatened?
Beck likes to traffic in ridiculous conspiracy theories about the government, but when his family is threatened, isn't he glad the government is there to protect him?
From the Twitter account of NRO's Jim Geraghty:
From Neal Boortz' Twitter account:
Whining in the pages of the Los Angeles Times earlier this month, Goldberg blamed the nasty liberal media for treating the Tea Party movement so unfairly:
If you read the Op-Ed pages these days, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the GOP and the conservative movement have been taken over by know-nothing mobs, anti-intellectual demagogues and pitchfork-wielding bigots.
For the record, Goldberg, as is his tradition, included zero examples of "Op-Ed pages these days" that have ridiculed the GOP and the conservative movement.
But more importantly, has Goldberg been reading the headlines lately? Because if he has, he'd realize that it's the Tea Party movement itself that has helped push its image as "know-nothing mobs, anti-intelletual demagogues and pitchfork- wielding bigots."
In other words, Goldberg shouldn't blame the press for the the right-wing facts on the ground.
Laura Bush's former flak just can't help himself when it comes to writing about polling, and specifically Obama's polling. He simply cannot tell the truth about the topic.
Here is the Obama-bashing blogger's latest, in the wake of the health care reform passage [emphasis added]:
However -- insert political alarm here for candidates running in November's midterms -- nearly half of Democrats (41%) and two out of three coveted independent voters want the GOP to continue its challenges. That would make for a tumultuous next several months and an active two-party system again in D.C. As Obama confronts souring favorable ratings.
Malcolm highlights the fact that the president is now confronting "souring favorable ratings." When readers click on the link provided by Malcolm, it takes them to an item he posted on March, 18, about Gallup polling that showed Obama's approval rating had fallen to 46 percent. (In the item, Malcolm erroneously claimed Obama's rating had "suddenly" fallen. It had not.)
But in order to claim that Obama is currently confronting "souring favorable ratings," Malcolm had to ignore the most recent Gallup numbers, which clearly show the president's numbers on the increase in the wake of the health care reform vote. (i.e. March 17, 46%; March 22, 51%)
Malcolm, citing Gallup numbers, claims Obama's approval rating in the wake of the health care vote is "souring." But according to Gallup, the opposite is true.
Can pundits get any more dishonest than that?
Watch Sean Hannity last night breathlessly report on the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll:
In the second portion of the above video, Hannity claimed that the poll "indicat[ed] that 79% of you think the economy could collapse throughout the Obama administration." [Emphasis added]
But the poll didn't specifically ask whether people thought the economy would collapse during the Obama administration. The question and possible answers read as follows:
Do you think it's possible the nation's economy could collapse or is the nation's economy so big and strong that it could never collapse?
SCALE: 1. Yes, economy could collapse 2. No, economy could never collapse 3. (Don't know)
Using the question to suggest that it has anything to do with Obama doesn't make any sense, since the question gives respondents the choice between: the economy could never collapse and the economy could collapse sometime between now and forever.
I don't think it's a stretch to assume that economists who don't think the economy will collapse in the near future would generally agree that the economy might collapse at some point before the end of time.
Or maybe Hannity just thinks that the length of the Obama administration and the time we have left before the end of days are one in the same.
According to NewsBuster Brent Baker, network news anchors and reporters who reported last night on the threats against Congressmen who supported health care reform were "legitimizing Democratic talking points meant to discredit critics of the just-passed health care bill":
Sounding more like MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann than impartial newscasts, ABC, CBS and NBC all led Wednesday night by legitimizing Democratic talking points meant to discredit critics of the just-passed health care bill. "Opposition to health care turns menacing," ABC's Diane Sawyer warned. CBS teased with audio clips -- "Baby-murdering scumbag,""You are a dirtbag" and "I hope you die" -- as fill-in anchor Maggie Rodriguez cited "threats of violence against Democrats who voted for health care reform, even as public support for the plan is growing."
Baker's argument is that Democrats are engaged in a "demonization effort" against opponents of the new law, and that the media, in reporting on the threatened violence, are playing into that effort. Notably, for all his denunciations of the Democrats and the press over this alleged "demonization," Baker couldn't find any space to denounce the people actually doing the threatening.
But perhaps he deserves at least some credit for resisting the temptation to blame the Democrats themselves for the threats, a theory his colleagues in the conservative blogosphere have eagerly promulgated.
Andrew Breitbart's elite squad of nitwit "journalists" have put their heads together and reached a conclusion on the spate of threats directed at Democratic lawmakers: it's all the Democrats' fault.
BigJournalism.com's Michael Walsh built upon BigGovernment.com's claim that the threats are "bogus" by warning the media that the Democrats are likely "exaggerating or even lying." According to Walsh, the perpetrators behind the threats are probably "agents provocateurs" of the type that started the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany, and the media should report the story with that "historical context" in mind. Walsh, like his colleagues at BigGovernment, offered absolutely nothing in the way of evidence (unless you count the Saul Alinsky quote he provided, but since Alinsky passed away almost 40 years ago his relevance to this story isn't what you'd call high).
Breitbart's flunkies see threats of violence against the Democrats, and imply that not only are the Democrats at fault, but they're just like the Nazis. It'd be sad if it weren't so despicable.
This seemed to be largely overlooked from CBS's exclusive about voice mail death threats that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI.) received in the wake of his role in passing health care reform. (And yes, please ponder the irony of the staunchly pro-life Stupak getting death threats from staunchly pro-life activists.)
Right-wingers have been in denial, insisting far-right protesters would never resort to racial epithets. Sort of like right-wingers were initially in denial last summer, claiming far-right protesters would never resort to marching around with swastika posters. (Hint: They did. A lot.)
But note what CBS reported [emphasis added]:
"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er... I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er," one man says in a message to Stupak.
"There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill," a woman says in a voicemail, "and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that's not very good for you."
CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak's name.
UPDATED: Funny if it weren't so sad. Right-wing bloggers go all Zapruder on a video clip, trying to prove that an African-American Congressman wasn't spit on during the Tea Party rally. Except check out the 1:26 mark, where it appears he was. And at 1:44, the Congressman wipes the spit away.
UPDATED: But oops, according to Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism, the spitter was probably one of the "agents provocateurs" sent by Democrats. What's next, is Breitbart going to claim there was actually a second spitter?