WorldNetDaily -- the far-right web site that even some conservatives say peddles "paranoid conspiracy theories" -- is now touting a book that purports to demonstrate that liberalism is a mental disorder:
WND goes on to assert: "Rossiter explains with great clarity why the kind of liberalism being displayed by Barack Obama can only be understood as a psychological disorder."
Given WND's track record, I can only assume WND is engaging in a Rovian effort to accuse their counterparts of their own shortcomings.
With its signature breathless/naive style, Politico plays the role of Lou Dobbs booster [emphasis added]:
Former CNN host Lou Dobbs fueled already rampant speculation about his political future Monday, sending the clearest signals yet that he's mulling a bid for president — and leaving third-party political operatives salivating over the possibility of a celebrity recruit for the 2012 campaign.
Honestly, is there anyone besides Lou Dobbs and Politico reporters who can detect any kind of "rampant speculation" about his political future? (I'd settle for any speculation.) Seems like it's been mostly crickets on that front since Dobbs left CNN.
UPDATED: I think humorist Andy Borowitz gets it about right:
Former CNN host Lou Dobbs said today that he was seriously considering running for president after being urged to do so by an imaginary friend.
The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib has a piece about Sen. Joe Lieberman's opposition to the public option that serves as a clear reminder of why politicians lie: they know they won't get called on it.
Mr. Lieberman also notes that the public option wasn't a big feature of past health-overhaul plans or the campaign debate of 2008.
Well, no. Mr. Lieberman doesn't "note" that. Mr. Lieberman lies about that.
Lieberman claims that "if you look at the campaign last year, presidential, you can't find a mention of public option...It was added after the election." In fact, the Obama-Biden campaign health care plan included a public option, and the New York Times reported as far back as May 2007 that "Mr. Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs." And when it is pointed out to Lieberman that his claims are incorrect, he reiterates them.
Seib, continuing directly:
So he says he finds it odd that it now has become a central demand -- which it has, he suspects, because some Democrats wanted a full-bore, single-payer, government-run health plan, and were offered a public option as a consolation.
But it isn't "odd" at all -- because Lieberman is lying when he says the public option wasn't part of the discussion until post-election. Seib completely gives him a free pass on those lies. Worse, he presents Lieberman's lies as the truth.
What happens when reporters present politicians' lies as truth? They encourage politicians to lie. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? Gerald Seib and the Wall Street Journal are encouraging Joe Lieberman to lie about health care.
Seib also quotes Lieberman's claims that he opposes a public option for fear of increasing the debt -- and, no, Seib does not bother pointing out that CBO says health care reform containing a public option will reduce the deficit.
It's important to keep in mind that Seib's entire piece is about Lieberman's opposition to health care reform. This isn't a case in which a reporter inserts a quick paragraph about Lieberman into a larger health care article without fact-checking his statements. That would be bad enough. But this is so much worse: an entire piece dedicated to Lieberman's opposition that presents Lieberman's false claims as truth, and neglects to mention that the CBO contradicts his claims.
For reasons no one seems able to explain, the right's criticism of health care reform legislation tends to drift toward matters of counting. First they complained that the bill(s) had too many pages, falsely claiming that Tolstoy's epic War and Peace boasts a lighter page count, as if this is indicative of anything other than an irrational prejudice against long books. Now, RedState.com has decided to sharpen their criticism by counting the words in the Senate health care bill -- not all the words, mind you, just arbitrarily selected words that offer "an interesting study in word choices that tell you all you need to know about the bill."
In one column they listed what I assume are the scary-liberal-socialist words, like "shall" and "provide" and "tax." In a second column are the freedom-liberty-Constitution words, like... well, "freedom," "liberty," and "Constitution." Without ever explaining what the point of their little exercise is, RedState shows that the scary-liberal-socialist words appear with much greater frequency than the freedom-liberty-Constitution words.
Well, two can play at this incredibly stupid game. I took RedState's two lists of words and checked* to see how frequently they appear in the twenty-or-so pages of the Constitution. The results are damning:
|Scary-liberal-socialist words||Freedom-liberty-Constitution words|
Shall or Shall Not: 337
Choose or "Chuse": 11
Constitution: 29 (not entirely fair)
If the raw numbers themselves aren't shocking enough, consider this: by RedState's count, the words "Shall" or "Shall Not" appear 3607 times in the 2074 pages of the health care bill, meaning they appear 1.74 times per page. Those same words appear 337 times in the 20 pages of the Constitution, for an average of 16.85 appearances per page.
The evidence is clear: the Constitution of the United States is at least 10 times as socialist and tyrannical as the Senate health care bill. Thank you, RedState, for helping us to expose this founding document as the commie, Marxist, rag that it is.
*My "methodology" consisted of copying and pasting the Constitution into a Word document and using Find-and-Replace to count the instances of each term. It's admittedly crude, but conducting a thoroughly scientific analysis of the words in the Constitution for the purposes of smacking down RedState's on-its-face-stupid premise would be like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.
Nearly 2,200 words into Howard Kurtz's column today, he finally got to something that could conceivably be considered media criticism -- and that consisted of quoting three paragraphs of a conservative blogger's attack on the New York Times.
If Kurtz is at a loss for story ideas, might I suggest this?
National Journal seems to make a bit of a thing out of the fact that Sarah Palin turned down all of CBS's interview requests last week. NJ linked the snub to the fact that Palin famously bombed during her Katie Couric interviews during last year's campaign. (In her book, Palin, without providing any evidence, claims it was biased CBS editing that made her look bad in those extended interviews. Okaaaay)
Here's NJ's Hotline:
Sources tell Hotline OnCall that Couric's producer sent two requests to Palin's publisher for interviews during the "Going Rogue" book tour, and so far, Couric has been denied.
It's not surprising -- Palin has not agreed to sit down with more than a small handful of mainstream media interviewers -- but the move looks to be part of a larger Palin blackout from CBS News and Entertainment.
But here's the thing to remember, and Hotline makes a passing reference to it above, Palin's freezing out all independent Beltway journalists during her book launch. She hasn't agreed to sit down with a single political reporter, even though Palin just wrote a very political book. (The boycott got so bad MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell was forced to elbow her way to the front of a fan rope line in hopes of simply asking Palin a couple questions.)
Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton, for instance, published a book and then refused to sit down with a single non-partisan cable host or a single political reporter from a major newspaper or magazine? Imagine if Clinton only agreed to do interviews with The Nation, Rachel Maddow and Air America? The Beltway press would go berserk mocking Clinton's timidity. But Palin snubs the entire D.C. press corps, and rather than complain, they just keep obsessing over her.
The whole spectacle has been rather pathetic to watch:
-Step 1: Palin launches a new book.
-Step 2: The news media lavish tens of millions of dollars in free publicity on the book.
-Step 3: Palin tells the news media to get lost and drives her book launch tour bus right around the independent press, which never complains. And in fact, it continues to give Palin even more free publicity.
As I asked last week, do journalists enjoy being used by Palin and then completely snubbed?
From Cal Thomas' November 24 column:
We've only just begun with this. The new breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines may soon become mandatory as health care rationing kicks in. The unwanted, the inconvenient and the "burdensome" could soon be dispatched with a pill, or through neglect.
Great horrors don't begin in gas chambers, killing fields or forced famines. They begin when there is a philosophical shift in a nation's leadership about the value of human life. Novelist Walker Percy examined the underlying philosophy that led to the Holocaust and wrote: "In a word, certain consequences, perhaps unforeseen, follow upon the acceptance of the principle of the destruction of human life for what may appear to be the most admirable social reasons."
In our day, the consequences of government seizure of one-sixth of our economy and government's ability to decide how we run our lives (it won't stop with health care) are foreseen. They are just being ignored in our continued pursuit of personal peace, affluence and political power.
Opinion polls show a majority of Americans reject this health care "reform" bill. They think haste may waste them in the end. It doesn't matter. Like members of a cult, whatever the leader says, goes. The facts be damned. The crowd from the '60s will "seize the time," in the words of Black Panther radical Bobby Seale, thus sealing our doom as a unique and wonderful nation.
Welcome to the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America.
From WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah's November 23 WND.com column headlined, "Why sin cannot be condoned by state":
On Friday, more than 150 Christian leaders, most of them conservative evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics, issued a joint declaration reaffirming their opposition to homosexual marriage on the basis of protecting religious freedom.
While I agree that government's granting of special "rights" based on aberrant sexual behavior is a religious freedom issue, it's not the main reason for concern by Christians and Jews.
The Bible clearly identifies homosexual behavior, as opposed to homosexual thoughts or predilections, as sin.
The issue Christians and Jews should be focused upon is whether it can ever be acceptable for the government to condone sin - or, worse yet, encourage it by making it a "right."
I don't believe government can do that without dire consequences.
America is being judged by God.
The biblical proof text is Romans 1.
I am not stating the obvious here - that individuals will be judged for their behavior in the afterlife. What I am saying is we are already being judged in the here and now for rejecting God and one of those judgments is the explosion of homosexuality in our culture and the absolute explosion in the number of people accepting it, condoning it and even rejoicing in it.
Whether you are a believer or not, this affects you. It shapes the world in which you and your children live. If you think your society is depraved now, you have seen nothing yet.
Farah's column is promoted on WND's frontpage next to an unscientific online poll asking readers, "LET'S NOT MINCE WORDS; What do you think of homosexuality?" From the WND.com poll, accessed on November 24:
Joseph Curl and Matthew Mosk at the Washington Times came up with a heck of a non-story story today for the reportedly troubled newspaper, titled, "Top Republican lawmakers not invited to State Dinner." Take a look:
The print article ran on the Times' front page with the headline, "Obama's big tent leaves out GOP bigwigs; Dinner to honor India's leader." Slightly different, but it gets the same point across. From the headlines, one would think that Curl and Mosk had exposed President Obama as a biting partisan, who ran Republicans' invitations to the White House's first state dinner through the shredder while they eagerly awaited them at home. But one would have to read on.
As it turns out, Obama did invite "top Republican lawmakers." They just aren't attending. Let's run through the list of Republicans the Times names in its story, despite its headline:
House Minority Leader John Boehner: He certainly counts as a "top Republican lawmaker." Curl and Mosk write that "Boehner won't be there; he's on Thanksgiving break and home in Ohio." Left out of their story? That Boehner was reportedly invited.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: Also a "top Republican" who "received an invitation" but "decided to skip the dinner."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal: He was invited, according to the Times, because he is a "prominent Indian-American." You could make a pretty solid argument that Jindal rose quickly in the GOP's ranks after they chose him to give a rebuttal to Obama's first address to Congress. At the time, the Times even decided that Jindal sounded pretty presidential.
Sen. John McCain: Not invited. The Times writes that this is despite the fact that "Obama the candidate pledged a post-partisan presidency."
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor: Not invited.
So let's recap: Mosk and Curl named five Republicans in their story who are "not on the A-list" for the White House's state dinner, two of which were apparently not invited. But they frame their story as "Top Republican lawmakers not invited to State Dinner." And of course, the clearest indication that this is a non-story is that Drudge has taken the bait by linking to the article with the outrageously false headline: "Not invited: Republican lawmakers..." Let's hope Times readers can wade through the muck and decide what's actually news today.
Former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd may have nailed down that honor today in the pages of the WashPost.
Behold this car wreck of a nut graph:
Yet while the conventional wisdom has it that Palin is too badly damaged to make a serious run in 2012 -- and I agree that her success is not probable -- it is definitely a possibility that Palin could be elected president of the United States.
Dowd doesn't think Palin can become president (it's "not probable"), but there's "definitely a possibility" that Palin could become president.
Honestly, what more is there to say?
UPDATED: As a bonus, Dowd lied about this:
Polls show that Palin's favorability numbers are a mirror image of those of Obama.