From MichaelSavage.com, accessed March 19:
From mormon scholar Joanna Brooks' March 19 post on The Huffington Post titled, "'Bringing the Hammer Down': Glenn Beck Doesn't Speak For The Mormons I Know":
Glenn Beck is a Mormon. So am I. During the nineteenth century, my Mormon ancestors crossed the plains to live their faith without fear of attack from the mobs that had hounded them out of Missouri and Illinois.
Watching Glenn Beck threaten to "bring the hammer down" on another person of faith makes my stomach turn.
I could cite a host of scriptures from the Bible and the Book of Mormon about how Beck's attack on Jim Wallis is not in keeping with faith-based values.
Suffice it to say, Glenn Beck does not speak for the Mormons I know.
Most Mormons I know have quite a bit in common with Reverend Jim Wallis, who has dedicated a life and a career to the service of others.
By contrast, Glenn Beck has devoted his life and career to expanding the media footprint of Glenn Beck.
He's done whatever it's taken: from cavorting with chimpanzees as a "morning zoo" shock jock to threatening to "bring the hammer down" on people of good will like Jim Wallis.
Who knows what kind of ugliness Glenn Beck will trot out when he "brings the hammer down" on Jim Wallis next week. As a Mormon woman, I agree with my Presbyterian friend in Atlanta: Beck has gone too far.
Early this afternoon, the Politico's Chris Frates posted a breathless story about a "memo obtained by POLITICO" that had been "sent Thursday to Democratic staff" in Congress.
Frates' story -- which coupled the memo with Republican allegations that "Democrats were playing a shell game" with the cost of health care reform and the so-call "doc fix" -- said nothing about where he got the memo and in no way suggested that there were any doubts about its authenticity.
Any reasonable reader would have assumed that since Frates simply wrote that the memo had been sent to "Democratic staff," a Democrat had leaked it to Politico.
As it turns out, that's apparently not what happened.
An earlier post in this spot detailed what was purported by Republicans to be an internal Democratic memo regarding the upcoming health reform vote Sunday. Democratic leadership has challenged the authenticity of the memo. POLITICO has removed the memo and the details about it until we can absolutely verify the document's origin.
So only now, after its story has been challenged, is Politico acknowledging that its source for the memo was unnamed "Republicans." That detail appeared nowhere in Frates' original story.
This is particularly significant since Politico also appears to be acknowledging that it posted the story without having "absolutely verif[ied] the document's origin."
In other words, two days before one of the biggest votes in recent memory, Politico published this article based only on Republican sources -- a fact it failed to disclose -- and without confirming that it was accurate. Moreover, they apparently rushed it up just in time for Rush Limbaugh to talk about it on his radio show, which he did. At length.
This has now become an issue not about whether the memo is real, but about the Politico itself.
As the right-wing American Spectator's Phil Klein wrote on Twitter, "Even were it to turn out to be real at this pt, they've just said that they dont verify stuff b4 posting."
This seems rather absurd, considering Gallup's own margin of error for its Obama poll is plus or minus 4 points. Meaning, a job approval rating drop of one or two points that Gallup is hyping is statistically irrelevant.
But that didn't stop Gallup from touting its latest results with this Drudge-friendly headline:
Obama's Approval Ratings Lowest Yet, Congress' Declines
And its lede:
President Barack Obama's job approval is the worst of his presidency to date, with 46% of Americans approving and 48% disapproving of the job he is doing as president in the latest Gallup Daily three-day average.
So Obama's three-day rolling average is 46 percent, the worst of his presidency. It all sounds very ominous and newsy, right? But what was Obama's previous low at Gallup? Um, 47 percent back in January.
Gallup wrote up a news report about Obama achieving the "worst" job approval ratings of his presidency based on the fact it's exactly one point lower than his previous mark, and even though, according to Gallup, the margin of error on the poll is four percent?
So statistically, I think I'm safe is saying that Obama's recent drop was negligible and you could accurately describe his approval ratings as having remaining essentially unchanged in recent weeks, as it has been for several months.
UPDATED: FYI, If you look at the numbers, the reason for Obama's marginal dip is because self-identified GOP voters have recently decided they like him even less. i.e. Independents and Democrats haven't budged on Obama since late last year.
From The Fox Nation, accessed on March 19:
It's not exactly a conservative value, but when you deal with misinformation and conspiracies the way Andrew Breitbart does, sometimes that means having to trash law enforcement and prosecutors. (If James O'Keefe, Breitbart's star student, is soon convicted in connection to his recent New Orleans caper, look for Breitbart to do a lot more trashing of law endorsement.)
Here's the most recent: Breitbart, yammering away to a Salon blogger, explaining away his ACORN woes:
When you look at it you find out that DA Hynes is a member of the ACORN working party's family. This is part of the continuity.
Oh brother. You can't trust New York prosecutors, claims Breitbart, because they're corrupt. And specifically, you can't trust the Brooklyn DA, Charles Hynes, because he's a "member" of the Working Party Family, which is supported by ACORN, so of course his office recently found no ACORN criminality.
It's all a web of lies.
Behold "conservative journalism."
President Obama argued for the passage of health care reform legislation at a rally today at George Mason University in northern Virginia, and only one cable news network didn't cover the event in it's entirety. Can you guess which network cut away to cover Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner's press conference?
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
Fox's Jon Scott cut off President Obama and stated flatly: "I described it before it began as a pep rally and you can kind of see that's what it is. The President doing everything he can to try and get the American people behind his health care reform plans." Scott suggested the Fox audience finish watching Obama's event on the internet if they were so inclined and then cut to Boehner for "the opposition point of view."
Oh, and for the record, both MSNBC and CNN showed Boehner's press conference after Obama's event had ended.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of the networks:
Since last July, Fox Business Network's Happy Hour has aired 25 gold update segments sponsored by gold company Rosland Capital, according to a Nexis transcript search. In recent months, Fox News has been criticized for the synergy between its paid personalities and gold companies such as Rosland.
The Fox Business gold update consists of a Happy Hour host presenting "a look at what gold did today courtesy of Rosland." FBN then airs an announcement stating that the update was sponsored by Rosland; a commercial for the company then usually follows. The following is an example that aired last night on Happy Hour:
Rosland Capital is a company closely tied to Fox News personalities. On its website, Rosland Capital features testimonies from Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, and Fox News Radio host John Gibson:
The company also features testimony from radio host G. Gordon Liddy, whose headshot features part of Fox Business' logo in the background.
Glenn Beck has repeatedly used his Fox show to promote gold while several gold firms have advertised on his show. Last December, the Politico reported of Fox and gold companies Rosland Capital and Goldline:
On Thursday, the network indicated it would ask Rosland Capital, a gold retailer, to remove from its website the logo for Bill O'Reilly's Fox show, the O'Reilly Factor, which Rosland features along with an audio clip of O'Reilly urging listeners to buy gold because "The U.S. Dollar is under attack!"
Fox's concern was that O'Reilly's endorsement of Rosland was specific to the radio show he no longer does, and Rosland is not a sponsor of his television show.
Rosland spokesman Steve Getzug said the company had not heard from Fox but was already "in the process of pulling the reference down as part of an overall update of Rosland's website." He called the O'Reilly endorsement "dated" and said "it's been a while since the company has updated its website."
Last week, Fox, which also airs Beck's television show, requested that Beck clarify his relationship with another gold retailer, Goldline International, leading the company to tweak its trumpeting of Beck's endorsement. Goldline removed an identification of Beck as a "paid spokesman" from its website, but left the rest of the site - which prominently features his endorsement, photo and a radio interview he did with the company's president Mark Albarian - intact.
Today on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade decided to bring his own patented brand of cluelessness to Fox's coordinated effort to dismiss the CBO's score of the health care reform reconciliation package.
Instead of just saying he doesn't trust the CBO score, like so many of his Fox News colleagues, Kilmeade took it one step farther, declaring that "it doesn't make any sense" that the bill could cost $940 billion while saving $130 billion:
KILMEADE: When the average person who -- and I think 99 percent our people are not economists that are watching right now -- say if a plan costs $940 billion, tell me how I'm saving $130 billion. So it doesn't make any sense. And by the way, while insuring 30 million more Americans
It sounds like someone needs to to tell Kilmeade about the revenue generating provisions of the bill and its cuts to Medicare, which raise enough money to more than cover the legislation's spending provisions. Here, maybe Kilmeade from one hour earlier can help:
KILMEADE: And also they're gonna increase taxes on individuals making over $200,000 and families who earn over $250,000. So when you talk about why this thing that's going to reduce the deficit by $138 billion, they claim, well someone's paying for that. Paying down -- the most successful people are paying down - an investment tax on those that are deciding to be creative and grow their income -- are gonna pay a price.
And here's co-host Dana Perino during the same program:
So, either Kilmeade is intentionally misleading his audience in order to dismiss the non-partisan CBO's estimate of the bill, or his colleague Megyn Kelly was more right than she realized when she said of the bill, "no one gets it." Quite a few of her Fox colleagues don't seem to.
It's been a bad few days for Investor's Business Daily's editorial board. On Wednesday, the paper tried to bolster its own flawed health care poll by noting that a survey conducted by a medical recruitment company called the Medicus Firm using a dubious methodology confirmed its results. According to IBD, the survey "was published as an insert in the New England Journal of Medicine - one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world"; the paper suggested that NEJM's editors had reviewed the survey to confirm its accuracy. Unfortunately for them, Media Matters contacted NEJM and learned that IBD's speculation was risibly false.
Not content to rest on their laurels, last night the paper published an editorial doubling down on the falsehood bubbling up from Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere that President Obama was incorrect in stating during a Fox News interview that Hawaii suffered an earthquake in 2006. IBD wrote::
"By the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it, ... " the president assured - sort of. But for the record, he said he's all for giving Louisiana millions of dollars because the state had gone through a "national emergency" - just like Hawaii when an earthquake hit.
We're still checking on that Hawaii reference. But even if there's been no such quake, we doubt the media would make much of the gaffe. This isn't George W. Bush, after all.
What a bank shot! IBD doesn't know if Obama is right or not... but if he's not, the media wouldn't call him on it anyway!
Here's a little help for the folks at IBD (their ability to find facts is somewhat dubious, so they probably need it): Do a Nexis search for "investor's business daily and Hawaii and earthquake." The first result is your editorial. The seventh includes the following news brief:
Earthquakes hit harder in Alaska
Alaska and Calif. were No. 1 and 2 in a survey based on the biggest earthquake each year from 1898-2005. Alaska's average top temblor was magnitude 6.7 vs. 6.02 for Calif. The study by the Nevada Seismological Laboratory is an effort to get the 10 shakiest states to build quake-resistant structures, especially after Hawaii's 6.7 temblor, which caused $50 mil in damage. Nev., Hawaii and Wash. rounded out the top 5 seismically active states.
On the other hand, it's understandable that IBD would not want to rely on their own newspaper for factual information. So they can try this instead: Search Wikipedia for "Hawaii earthquake." The first result is "2006 Hawaii earthquake." Read it.