From conservative web publisher Andrew Breitbart's Twitter account:
Someone get the smelling salts. WorldNetDaily is gonna need them:
Now, I won't pretend to be surprised that WND is outraged at a "'gay musical,'" when they presumably wouldn't think twice about a "'straight' musical."
But I am curious about one thing: why does WND repeatedly put the word gay in quotes? Do they think the musical isn't really gay?
Anyway, WND uses the musical as an excuse to hawk this charming little book:
Why have Americans come to tolerate, embrace and even champion many things that would have horrified their parents' generation? Get David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" at the WND Superstore.
Newsbusters' Jeff Poor issues a proclamation:
We've already seen how ineffective the previous $787-billion stimulus Congress and the President forced through earlier this year has been with curbing unemployment, as it has raced into double-digits over the previous months. But will there be an effort to force through another one?
Now, let's set aside the question of whether the first stimulus really has been "ineffective" for a moment.
Poor never once entertains the possibility that if it has been ineffective (or insufficiently effective), it's because it was too small. This despite the fact that many economists at the time said it should be bigger. And despite the fact that conservative economist Martin Feldstein, a former Reagan administration official, says "There should have been more direct federal spending," and former McCain economic advisor Mark Zandi says "there was a considerable amount of hand-wringing that it was too small, and I sympathized with that argument." Zandi also says "the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do - it is contributing to ending the recession. ... In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus."
No, forget all that: Newsbusters' Jeff Poor says the stimulus has been ineffective, and there shouldn't be any more. He doesn't offer any evidence or expert analysis -- but why would we need any? He's Newsbuster Jeff Poor. Isn't that enough?
You've probably noticed that Washington Post columnist David Broder and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are having a bit of a spat. Again. What you may have missed was the Beltway media rallying around Broder via a Politico article earlier this week:
In an age of ideological divisions, Broder is widely known as a fair arbiter on Capitol Hill, a journalist who's as interested in the process as he is in the policy and politics. He favors pragmatists over fierce ideologues and speaks up for decorum in Washington politics.
David Broder called for Bill Clinton's resignation over lies told about an affair, then refused to call for George W. Bush's resignation over lies told about a war, and refuses to explain the disparity. He writes extensively about the marriages of Democrats, but when asked if he plans to write a similar article about Republicans, replies, "Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that." Broder may be "widely known as a fair arbiter," but it's hard to justify that reputation if you look at his actual track record. Which I have, in great detail.
As for Broder's staunch defense of decorum in Washington politics: that, too, is rather inconsistent. Or perhaps when he dines on quail with his good buddy, the famously indecorous Karl Rove, he does so in order to urge his pal to tone down the partisan attacks? (Or maybe Broder's insistence that reporters should apologize for Rove for -- correctly -- suggesting Rove was part of a campaign to out Valerie Plame was an example of his defense of DC decorum? Criticizing someone for outting a CIA agent is so rude.)
Anyway, take a look at the things Broder is praised for in that Politico article: his sense of "decorum" and his "temperate disposition" and the fact that he "knows everybody."
Well, I couldn't care less about his disposition or who he knows. I've read quite a bit of his work, and much of it isn't any good.
Maybe you thought that the recent outrage from the right over Newsweek's use of a photo of Sarah Palin in a running outfit meant conservatives are finally coming to understand that sexism has no place in the news media. And maybe you thought all the attention the mainstream media paid to the controversy was a sign that they, too, are beginning to see the light -- and not simply another example of them asking conservative media critics how high they should jump. Well, if you thought that, you'd be wrong.
Take, for example, Newsbusters. The right-wing media critics were all over the Newsweek/Palin controversy. But they haven't said a word about Mark Halperin doctoring a photo to portray Mary Landrieu as having semen in her hair.
But Newsbusters certainly isn't alone in ignoring Halperin's vicious portrayal of Landrieu. Do a Nexis search for news reports containing the words "Halperin" and "Landrieu" in the past week, and you'll get exactly one result: a blog post by Michael Tomasky. And this comes immediately after the media uproar over the Newsweek Palin cover.
Now, you might think the difference in attention is because Newsweek made the mistake of putting the photo of Palin on its cover, while Halperin's photoshop of Landrieu appeared only on Time's web page. On the other hand, Newsweek used a photo Sarah Palin voluntarily posed for in order to promote herself, whereas Halperin doctored a photo of Mary Landrieu to make it look like she had semen in her hair. So, let's call it even, shall we?
And, no, the disparity can't be explained by the fact that Beltway journalists love Mark Halperin, creator of ABC's insider gossip sheet The Note. Glenn Beck called Mary Landrieu a prostitute, and the media didn't give a damn. And when I say Beck called Mary Landrieu a prostitute, I don't mean that he hinted that Landrieu might do legislative favors in exchange for campaign cash. I mean he literally called her a "prostitute."
Progressive political figures like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have been on the receiving end of sexist media treatment for years, and conservative media critics like Newsbusters don't give a damn. Nor does much of the mainstream media. The lesson? Newsweek's treatment of Sarah Palin was, indeed, sexist -- but many of those who criticized it don't really care about sexism in the media. They care that a Republican was the target, and that Republicans were upset.
First it was Newsmax columnist John L. Perry. Now it's Rush Limbaugh essentially advocating a military coup by saying that when Obama outlines his Afghanistan policy at the United States Military Academy at West Point next week, "hopefully" they will "detain him" there.
Note: If you are calling for military officials to detain a president, you are calling for a military coup.
Newsmax got rid of Perry's column after we highlighted it and endeavored to distance itself from the column. But Limbaugh is more known for people apologizing to him than for apologizing for his outrageous remarks.
Local officials in St. Louis have charged six people in connection with a scuffle that broke out outside an August health care forum. Two of those charged are SEIU members who were hit with misdemeanor ordinance violations in connection with their altercation with Kenneth Gladney. They're accused on beating him up.
Problem for Breitbart and Big Government, as well as the rest of the over-excited right-wing blogosphere, is the low-key charges don't back up any of sensational allegations they've been making for months about the Gladney case. Namely that Gladney was savagely beaten within an inch of his life. (Note the "misdemeanor ordinance violations" that were filed.) That Gladney was the victim of a "hate crime." (No such charges were filed.) And that, most incredibly, the White House "directed" union members to beat up town hall protesters.
What's always been clear about the St. Louis event, since it was partially captured on video, was that a scuffle broke out the night of the town hall forum. Now six people face relatively minor charges and will have a chance to defend themselves. What remains a mystery is why the right-wing catapulted this minor event into the rhetorical stratosphere and concocted all sorts of wild claims about hate crimes, savage beatings, and (best of all) a White House connection. There's still no evidence any of that ever took place.
UPDATED: Not surprisingly, Breitbart's crowing about the Gladney "hate crime" case. And of course, there is no Gladney "hate crime" case. It doesn't exist. Period. It only exists within the fervent imaginations of right-wing bloggers. (Or do those "misdemeanor ordinance violations" somehow qualify as hate crime charges in the state of Missouri?) Then again, those community workers weren't actually "praying" to Obama, and that didn't stop Breitbart from spreading that lie. So there's a definite trend in play here.
Eighty 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 November 25 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From Dana Perino's twitter feed: