From Ann Coulter's February 24 syndicated column:
Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.
If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)
Sean Hannity is not terribly interested in telling his Fox News viewers the truth, as his track record all too amply demonstrates. So, it's no surprise that Hannity would twist the words of Jimmy Carter in order to portray President Obama as weak.
On his February 24 show, Hannity asserted that Carter is "fuming" that a Foreign Policy magazine article made comparisons between Carter and Obama. Apparently, Hannity insisted, "President Obama has made such a mess that even Jimmy Carter is now distancing himself from the president."
Except that's not what happened at all. Carter was, in fact, complaining about Foreign Policy's attempt to paint Obama as "a new Jimmy Carter" as a symbol of Obama's supposed "weakness and indecision." At no point did Carter distance himself from Obama. His complaint was joined by a letter from Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, making a similar argument.
Hannity has a tired Obama-bashing script he must adhere to, no matter what -- and he's certainly not going to let the facts get in his way.
From the February 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
It is this sort of extremist rhetoric that drove 80 advertisers from Beck's show last year. They decided they didn't want to be associated with Beck and his comments, and pulled their ads in response. Ever since, Beck's commercial breaks have consisted of ads for gold, "As Seen on TV"-type products, conservative organizations seeking a friendly audience and other Newscorp subsidiaries, along with an inordinate number of Fox News promos.
And yet, Visa has advertised on Beck's last two Fox News programs. Visa must be aware of this year-long advertiser boycott, so we have no choice but to assume that the company wishes to be associated with the following Beck comments:
At least 80 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 for white people." Here are his February 24 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
It snowed in Moscow -- Moscow, mind you, not Havana -- and so National Review's Greg Pollowitz was compelled to make a crack about global warming:
I can only assume conservative journalists are compelled to take some sort of oath never to let facts or science get in the way of a bad joke.
UPDATE: A reminder:
Bill Hemmer, the anchor of Fox News' America's Newsroom, claims in a TVNewser interview that Fox News' "opinion" programs don't bleed into his "news" program:
TVNEWSER: The evening opinion hosts get a lot of press and a lot of attention ... I'm kind of wondering, do you think that there's any sort of effect on the news reporters and anchors?
HEMMER: I hope not. You wonder if some of that bleeds over into other areas. In our case, it does not. On our broadcast, with Martha MacCallum and me, we shoot it down the middle at 9am and for the next several hours after that.
From the Media Matters archive of America's Newsroom:
And finally, a picture example of America's Newsroom shooting "it down the middle":
Fellow Fox "straight news" anchor Jon Scott -- when he's not cut and pasting GOP research as own or repeating fake stories that have already been retracted -- has also defended the integrity of the channel's news hours.
UPDATE: Seriously, where would anyone get the idea that the "opinion" shows bleed into the "news" programs?
(3/13/09; 1/12/09; 2/2/09; 3/13/09; 6/9/09)
Is anybody on the far-right end of the Internets going to stick up for poor Andrew Breitbart now that it's been revealed that he and his ACORN pals, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, perpetrated a hoax by suggesting O'Keefe was dressed as an outlandish pimp during his undercover ACORN sting last summer?
Usually, regardless of the facts, the right-wing blogosphere will defend any online ally. Since Media Matters helped draw the curtain back on the story, it's been mostly crickets from GOP bloggers. (And that includes Breitbart's own sites, which have not bothered to mount any kind of defense.) Not even Breitbart's gay-bashing buddy Jim Hoft, at the often fact-free Gateway Pundit site, has bothered to try to defend the pimp hoax.
And let me tell you, as a conservative you know you're in trouble when even Gateway Pundit won't make stuff up on your behalf.
UPDATED: Alas, good ole Patterico, last seen failing miserably to fact-check my work, has weighed in with a defense of Breitbart. Actually, that's not true. Patterico makes virtually no attempt to defend Breitbart. He does, however, try to defend Hannah Giles.
But, as has becomes his custom, Patterico's very, very angry effort is a complete mess. (He attacks me for writing something I didn't write. Genius!) In fact, it's already been debunked by his own readers.
But hey, at least Patterico tried, which is more than I can say for the rest of the right-wing blogosphere.
Want to see a neat trick?
As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.
Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.
To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.
Here's how the trick works:
Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.
In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.
This is absurd.
The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.
To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of "deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of conservatives attacking "freedom."
It would be about as honest.