This is why it's hard to take the Beltway press corps seriously. After weeks of teeth-gnashing about how Obama was supposedly overexposed, The Note switches gears:
Remember back when President Obama was everywhere?
A president whose new, new push on health care was all about active engagement, and flooding the messaging zone, has now gone two weeks without holding a health care rally. Since pulling off the full Sunday spin cycle two weekends ago, the health care interviews have ceased.
It's like the Goldilocks approach to journalism: Obama gives a handful interviews and he's too hot! Obama doesn't give interviews and he's too cold!
Oh brother. I don't remember this kind of almost hourly temperature-taking during the Bush years.
From Ted Nugent's October 1 HumanEvents.com column:
Jimmy Carter is either a racist or an idiot or both. Probably both, tinged with a little senility.
Carter recently made the statement that he believes racism is at the core of the angst by those who are protesting Barry O's policies and programs.
Schindler's list was probably racist too. Bad deal, criticizing the naked Emperor like that.
With beliefs and statements such as these, one has to wonder if Jimmy Boy still lusts after other women or if Rosslyn has finally tamed the beast.
When the left-wing moonbats and their toxic, dopey, hippie-inspired ideas are cornered and exposed, they will often revert to hollow and tired charges of racism in hopes of deflecting the blazing light of truth. These are the actions of a racist. What say you, Peanut Boy?
The Democrats know that without the support of black Americans their political party is doomed --a t least until they can addict the immigrants who have arrived over our southern border. Get them dependent on Fedzilla handouts, and the Democrats believe they can own their votes.
Meanwhile, the condition of black America continues to erode because our government keeps it so. How sad. How totally unnecessary.
You don't need to be an historian to see who the real racists are in America. Jimmy Boy, Barry O and others have been destroying black America for decades for their votes. That's the ugliest side of racism.
Here's the Big Government headline [emphasis added]:
Massive Voter Fraud in NY Linked to ACORN
Wow, sounds like a big deal. And Big Government even linked to a legit news org for the details, the Albany Times Union. Here's the newspaper's excerpt that Big Government posted:
Dozens of forged and fraudulent absentee ballots from people registered to vote on the Working Families Party line were filed in the Sept. 15 primary elections in Troy. Documents at the county Board of Elections show the fraudulent ballots were handled by or prepared on behalf of various elected officials and leaders and operatives for the Democratic and Working Families parties. There may be as many as 50 absentee ballots that were forged, according to people close to the case. Countywide, there were 126 absentee ballots applied for on the Working Families Party line. Okay. A) In the world of Big Government, 50 questionable absentee ballots qualifies as "massive voter fraud." Good to know. And B) What does any of that have to do with ACORN, which we're told is "linked" to the case? Well, according to the Times Union, the fraud case has nothing to do with ACORN. In fact, ACORN is never mentioned in the article; an article Big Government flagged as proof of a massive ACORN fraud case. The "link" only came when Big Government rolled out its right-wing attempt at guilt-by-association. It only worked when Big Government linked to partisan GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone, that paragon of good taste, to spell out the supposed link.
Dozens of forged and fraudulent absentee ballots from people registered to vote on the Working Families Party line were filed in the Sept. 15 primary elections in Troy.
Documents at the county Board of Elections show the fraudulent ballots were handled by or prepared on behalf of various elected officials and leaders and operatives for the Democratic and Working Families parties.
There may be as many as 50 absentee ballots that were forged, according to people close to the case. Countywide, there were 126 absentee ballots applied for on the Working Families Party line.
Okay. A) In the world of Big Government, 50 questionable absentee ballots qualifies as "massive voter fraud." Good to know.
And B) What does any of that have to do with ACORN, which we're told is "linked" to the case? Well, according to the Times Union, the fraud case has nothing to do with ACORN. In fact, ACORN is never mentioned in the article; an article Big Government flagged as proof of a massive ACORN fraud case.
The "link" only came when Big Government rolled out its right-wing attempt at guilt-by-association. It only worked when Big Government linked to partisan GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone, that paragon of good taste, to spell out the supposed link.
Andrew Breitbart seems to be upset that Media Matters keeps picking apart his online reporting. Apparently Breitbart wants to be a player in conservative "journalism," he just doesn't want anyone else to point out the gaping holes in the stuff that gets posted on his sites.
From a September 30 post on former Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Eric Black's MinnPost blog:
My friend and former colleague Katherine Kersten connected a few non-existing dots in a Sunday Strib column to imply that the demonic ACORN may have stolen the 2008 MN Sen. election for Al Franken. She offers precisely zero particles of evidence that any improper act by ACORN resulted a single improper vote for Franken being counted, or even rejected. Of course, she didn't say that such a thing occurs, she merely puts together facts from other states, the current ACORN embarrassments in other states, notes that ACORN was active in voter registration in Minnesota, that ACORN supported both Franken and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, and concludes with a question:
"Did ACORN folks pull some fast ones to help get their favorite son Franken elected - a win that handed Democrats the 60-vote, veto-proof majority that they needed to enact their liberal agenda?"
She does not note, as basic fairness might have required, that despite the enormous scrutiny given to the Minnesota election, neither Norm Coleman nor any of his attorneys ever alleged that such a thing had occurred and in fact specified to the Supreme Court that it was making no allegation of fraud in the election.
As I've written before, the lack of any evidence of fraud, or even attempted fraud, in this excruciatingly close, highly scrutinized election is something of which Minnesota should be proud.
From conservative web publisher Andrew Breitbart's Twitter account:
From the September 30 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
More than 60 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his September 30 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
* Correction: Media Matters incorrectly identified this advertiser as GFI. We regret the error.
As the Daily Howler notes today, too bad Friedman didn't make that blindingly obvious conclusion, y'know, during the 1990's. Instead, at the time Friedman stuck to the preferred NYT script and treated the phony Whitewater story as a big deal.
Here's the passage in question for Friedman's column today [emphasis added]:
Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president "41," will be remembered as our last "legitimate" president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater "scandal." George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.
Writes the Howler:
Friedman has been a columnist at the Times roughly since the invention of noise. According to the Nexis records, his first reference to "Bill Clinton" occurred in March 1992. But his first reference to "Whitewater" didn't occur for five years after that! And how weird! This is what he wrote at that time, about this bogus non-scandal:
FRIEDMAN (5/19/97): Does Ken Starr do diplomacy?
I ask because it's now clear that NATO expansion is the Whitewater of the Clinton foreign policy. Like Whitewater, NATO expansion began with a poorly financed, poorly conceived real estate deal, sold to Bill Clinton by fast-talking policy hucksters...Like Whitewater, the cover-up is worse than the original deal, and the ultimate costs far greater than if he had just walked away.
Today, Friedman dismisses Whitewater as as a "bogus" "scandal." But during the Clinton years, when press elites hyped the pointless saga, Friedman played along.
It's a must-read post by Rick Moran at his conservative site, Right Wing Nut House.
"'SILENCE EQUALS ASSENT:' WHY POINTING OUT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY MUST BE DONE
Moran does not hold back as he eviscerates the unhinged hate rhetoric that now powers large portions of the conservative movement. But he also goes after those who remain silent within GOP circles about the "lunacy" that's unfolding.
Trying to argue rationally with someone who believes Obama is a Nazi, or a Communist is akin to arguing with a stone wall. And at least the wall is smart enough not to keep opening its mouth and further proving how irrational it is...The emotional state of conservatism now coupled with the hyper partisan atmosphere in the country (and the already excessive ideological nature of the opposition to Obama) is a combination that afflicts the reason centers of the mind and is proving to be a block to thinking logically. What is there to "fear" about Obama and the Democrats? They are proposing the same liberal crap that the left has been promoting for more than 30 years. We have fought them before using reason and logic. What is so different now?
I don't know how to say it any other way; those conservatives who don't see a problem with this, or don't think it "representative" of a significant portion of the conservative movement, or who don't believe this sort of thing should be taken out, examined, and criticized as forcefully as possible are fooling themselves into believing this kind of thinking doesn't matter. It is poison coursing through the body of conservatism and we either use reason and logic as an antidote or it will end up killing us.
Wonder what Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg have to say.
Yesterday, Anne Applebaum was one of two -- two! -- Washington Post columnists who argued for leniency for child rapist Roman Polanski. Applebaum's argued that Polanski shouldn't be imprisoned because he has suffered enough -- he's had to pay lawyers' fees, and was unable to pick up an Oscar he won for fear he'd be taken for jail. No, really -- that was Applebaum's argument:
He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar.
That's just dumb. People who commit crimes do not pay their debts to society when they write checks to their lawyers. And saying that someone has paid for the crime of child rape by being unable to receive an Oscar may be the single most clueless thing ever written by a Washington Post columnist.
Anyway, Applebaum's defense of Polanski drew some well-deserved ridicule, here and elsewhere.
Well, today, Applebaum responded. And, as Paul Campos points out at Lawyers, Guns and Money, she responds by saying, basically, that the Polanski case isn't "straightforward and simple" because Polanski's victim -- a 13-year-old child -- had asked her mother for permission to be photographed in a jacuzzi.
Applebaum doesn't bother to explain why a 13-year-old child asking her mother for permission to be photographed in a jacuzzi in any way gets a grown man off the hook for subsequently drugging and raping the child. She just assumes we'll understand. But, in any case, Campos points out that Applebaum got it wrong; the victim didn't ask her mother if she could be photographed in a jacuzzi. So Applebaum's defense of Polanski is not only strange and bizarre, it is factually inaccurate as well.
Applebaum also defends herself from criticism that she should have disclosed the fact that her husband, a Polish government official, is currently lobbying for Polanski's freedom. Applebaum writes that at the time she wrote the original blog post, she "had no idea that the Polish government would or could lobby for Polanski's release, as I am in Budapest and my husband is in Africa."
I actually find that reasonably compelling. Unfortunately, that isn't Applebaum's only defense of her lack of disclosure. Applebaum:
For the record, I will note that I mentioned my husband's job in a column as recently as last week, and that when he first entered the Polish government three years ago I wrote a column about that too. I have to assume that the bloggers who have leapt upon this as some kind of secret revelation are simply unfamiliar with my writing.
This is nonsense. If a conflict exists, it isn't sufficient to disclose it once. It must be disclosed every time it is relevant. Applebaum seems to assume that Washington Post readers make a mental catalogue of every Post reporter and columnist, their relationships, and their conflicts of interest. That anyone who ever reads anything she writes will take it upon themselves to keep a running tally of her conflicts, so she need disclose them only once. That, obviously, is not going to happen. And it displays a stunning arrogance -- she thinks everyone who reads her column cares enough about her to know where her husband works.
Finally, she's misstating the nature of what she mocks as the "secret revelation." The criticism wasn't that her husband is an employee of the Polish government. Nobody cares about that. It's that her husband is a Polish government official who is currently lobbying for the very thing Applebaum is arguing in favor of. Surely she understands the difference?
The implication, in any case, that I am a spokesman for my husband -- while not quite as offensive as the implication that my daughter should be raped -- is offensive nevertheless.
That's a pretty poor attempt to play the victim. Does Anne Applebaum expect us to believe that she doesn't think it would be newsworthy if, say, a United States Senator casts a vote that would benefit her spouse's business, without disclosing the interest?
There's a clear difference between saying someone is incapable of thinking independently and is merely a puppet of their spouse, and saying someone should disclose conflicts of interest that arise from their spouse's work. The former would, indeed, be offensive. The latter is what people were actually saying.
UPDATE: Applebaum also includes this priceless line:
Note that the only legitimate disagreements Applebaum can bring herself to refer to came from her Washington Post colleagues. Note also that she doesn't actually tell us what those disagreements were. Or which of their "points" she "takes." It's a secret. And, finally, note that neither Robinson nor Cohen actually mention her in any way, and that Cohen agrees with her that Polanski should not be jailed.