Over the past couple of weeks, Glenn Beck has repeatedly hosted fellow radio talk show host Jay Severin. This booking seemed to make sense, as Beck was frequently chatting with him about the Massachusetts special election, and, after all, Severin broadcasts from Boston.
However, a quick search of Media Matters' archives turns up a few Severin phrases that would not be out of place on your garden variety edition of Beck's show, like saying of then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that "[w]ith Hillary Clinton you've got Hugo Chavez in a dress," and calling her "the devil." How about Severin channeling Beck's response to torture allegations, stating that the abuse of detainees by at Abu Ghraib was equivalent to "treat[ing] them essentially to a week in Las Vegas," adding, "I have to pay good money to have that done to me." Indeed, Media Matters has documented a long history of Jay Severin's offensive comments.
Like Beck, whose history of racially-charged remarks includes the statement that Obama is a "racist", Severin himself has a checkered history discussing minorities. In fact his comments that Mexican immigrants are "criminaliens," "primitives," and "leeches" -- in addition to calling Mexico an exporter of "women with mustaches and VD" -- was enough to get him suspended from his station for a month.
Yes, Severin and Beck even share the bond of losing advertisers after their racially-charged comments.
Thus, it only seemed fitting when, on January 20, Beck introduced Severin onto his show by calling him "a friend of mine from Boston."
From The Fox Nation, accessed on January 22:
Fox Nation links readers to www.virtualmarchforlife.com.
It was from the Toronto Star and was for an article about the upcoming Winter Olympics:
Warm, wet weather causes shutdown of Cypress Mountain: Officials are hoping to preserve snowboarding and freestyle courses
Yep, there's no way Drudge would ever highlight a news article about how unseasonably warm it is in Canada because that would run counter to the conservative, anti-reason argument that becomes it sometimes gets cold in the winter, that means climate change doesn't exist.
FYI, from the Star [emphasis added]:
Olympic officials who have been dreaming of a white Winter Games are instead being met with a brown, muddy nightmare as unseasonably warm weather, heavy rain, and lack of snow forced them to close the mountain where next month's snowboarding and freestyle skiing events will be held.
David Gregory, to President Bush, April 13, 2004: "One of the biggest criticisms of you is that ... you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism?"
David Gregory, asked what mistakes he has made during his first year as host of Meet the Press: "I don't think we've made mistakes."
Here's a few mistakes Gregory might want to reflect upon for the next time he gets that question:
Since they never tire of playing the victim, concocting anti-government conspiracy theories, or projecting their Nixon-era guilt, this conservative media trend actually makes sense: If you cross the White House, you will be audited!
But that doesn't stop National Review Online from raising the dark specter of an unfolding/imaginary, anti-business intimidation campaign. Writing about yesterday's SCOTUS ruling to allow corporations to more directly finance campaign advertising, Steve Hoersting wrote:
For now, there is little doubt that the Citizens United ruling will free up many more resources for politics in coming election cycles. We can expect existing unions to turn on the spigots even more openly, and for new entities to crop up to accept corporate money.
The only real question is whether corporations brave enough to take advantage of the opinion, and go against the Democrats, will risk audits or the nationalization of their businesses.
So based on nothing more that than a fervent, conspiracy-minded imagination, NRO warns businesses that they'll be audited --that the Obama administration will illegally use the IRS --if corporations spend money to criticize Democrats.
And of course, if there's a hollow anti-Obama conspiracy to push, count Glenn Beck in:
From Westwood One radio host Fred Thompson's Twitter account:
When we noted the rather useless NJ poll that simply asked voters if they would today re-elect Obama for a second term (even though he wont be on the ballot for two more years), we stressed how pointless it was to pit Obama vs. "somebody else" on the hypothetical ballot.
In other words:
Perhaps what would be revealing is if National Journal did a poll and inserted the name "Sarah Palin" into the slot of "someone else." Or "Newt Gingrich." Or "Tim Pawlenty." The point being that elections are between two candidates, not an incumbent vs. "someone else." Unless voters know who the "someone else" is, the results are pretty pointless.
Nonetheless, the National Journal poll enjoyed some online buzz because (wow!) "50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else."
Well, now Fox News has run a 2012 poll and filled in the "somebody else" slot (and filled it mostly with FNC employees!), and not surprisingly the results are quite different than simply asking people if they'd vote for Obama without giving them a specific challenger.
According to Fox News, Obama would waltz to re-election against Mitt Romney, sail to a second term against Sarah Palin, and probably wouldn't even have to campaign against Newt Gingrich.
So, from now until 2012, you can pretty much ignore media polls that ask voters to pick between Obama and the mysterious "somebody else."
Thanks to this Scott Brown-related dispatch [emphasis added]:
Mass. could benefit if senators set aside partisanship
Right, and if ponies could fly they'd land on rainbows.
This goes back to the point I made yesterday about how the political press refuses to tell the truth about what's been happening inside the Beltway for the last 13 months regarding how the GOP has adopted a radical and unprecedented partisan approach to the White House, to the point where basically every single GOP member opposes all key administration initiatives. We've never seen anything like it in modern American history, but the press pretends like it's normal, and that gosh, bipartisanship is still possible.
Does the Globe really think there's a chance Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner are suddenly going to free their members to vote their conscience on issues and to vote for what's best for their constituents?
The Globe is being almost childishly naive here.