At least 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 for white people." Here are his February 11 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
So is this going to become a running thing, where conservative blogger Patterico makes lame attempts at fact-checking my work and then I have to embarrass him on this blog?
So be it.
No doubt still stinging from the "hit-and'-run" mess earlier this week, Patterico claims I had it all wrong when I recently blogged that the New York Times has erroneously reported that, during his undercover ACORN sting, James O'Keefe entered the offices dressed as a pimp. It's erroneous because according to a recent independent investigation, that's just not true; a fact blogger Brad Friedman has recently been highlighting.
O'Keefe did not go inside the ACORN offices dressed as a pimp. The outlandish pimp costume was later used as a propaganda tool and was used to suggest he'd entered ACORN offices looking like a pimp, and OMG how dumb can those ACORN workers be?! But there's no evidence he ever did. (Instead, O'Keefe was dressed like a college student.)
Yet, as I noted, the Times has made the dressed-like-a-pimp-inside-ACORN-offices claim. Now Patterico says I got it wrong and that the newspaper has never claimed that O'Keefe was dressed that way when he made his undercover tapes. Patterico insists the Times simply described O'Keefe as playing the part of the pimp, or posing, and not actually dressed that way.
Scolds the clueless Patterico [emphasis original]:
Uh, no, dopey. The Times hasn't. Nor have the other outlets cited by [Brad] Friedman. These outlets have made the "O'Keefe posed as a pimp" claim. And that claim is true, because if you have seen the tapes, that's exactly what O'Keefe did.
K. Ready for the embarrassing part where I quote the New York Times claiming O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp visiting ACORN offices?
The undercover videos showed a scantily dressed young woman, Hannah Giles, posing as a prostitute, while a young man, James O'Keefe, played her pimp. They visited Acorn offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn and San Bernardino, Calif., candidly describing their illicit business and asking the advice of Acorn workers. Among other questions, they asked how to buy a house to use as a brothel employing under-age girls from El Salvador. Mr. O'Keefe, 25, a filmmaker and conservative activist, was dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risque high school play.
But never has his work had anything like the impact of the Acorn expose, conducted by Mr. O'Keefe and a friend he met through Facebook, 20-year-old Hannah Giles. Their travels in the gaudy guise of pimp and prostitute through various offices of Acorn, the national community organizing group, caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution.
Honestly Patterico. If you're going to try to play this game, get a Nexis account. Or at least Google.
UPDATED: Oh yeah, according to Patterico I'm the "hack."
UPDATED: My fellow "hack," Marcy Wheeler also has fun at Patterico's expense.
UPDATED: And three makes a trend. Blogger Brad Friedman dissects Patterico's whiff..
UPDATED: Patterico responds, kinda. (It's a mess. His new angle: Who cares anyway???)
For the record, Patterico insisted the Times never, ever reported that O'Keefe was dressed up as a pimp while inside the ACORN offices. I quite plainly proved, using the Times' own stories, that the newspaper did.
Note to Patterico: Stop digging!
UPDATED: Oh yeah, here's another example of the Times describing O'Keefe dressed as a pimp. An example, that according to Patterico, does not exist.
Mr. O'Keefe made his biggest national splash last year when he dressed up as a pimp and trained his secret camera on counselors with the liberal community group Acorn -- eliciting advice on financing a brothel on videos that would threaten to become Acorn's undoing.
UPDATED: Believe it or not, Patterico is supposed to be a star of the RW blogosphere; one of the serious players on the far right.
From the February 10 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show:
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Unusually Large Snowstorm|
From the February 10 edition of Comedy Central's Colbert Report:
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
|We're Off to See the Blizzard|
Newt Gingrich was publicly embarrassed this week when he claimed on Tuesday night's The Daily Show that shoe bomber Richard Reid was Mirandized after he was arrested because he was an American citizen. The next day, Gingrich corrected his mistake -- Jon Stewart had done it first as he was wrapping up Tuesday's TDS -- via Twitter and took the opportunity to attack the Obama administration again.
On Wednesday morning, Gingrich tweeted:
On daily show was wrong re: ShoeBomber citizenship, was thinking of Padilla. Treating terrorists like criminals wrong no matter who is Pres.
Huffington Post's Sam Stein pointed out that Gingrich's claim that "treating terrorists like criminals" is "wrong" diverged from previous comments he'd made on Fox News in 2005 defending the Bush administration's decision to try Jose Padilla in criminal court.
Here's what Gingrich said on the November 22, 2005 edition of The O'Reilly Factor (accessed from the Nexis database):
JOHN KASICH, GUEST HOST: Newt, let's start with Padilla. You know, we were holding him as an enemy combatant. And then for some reason, they decide to transfer him over to some sort of a criminal court. Is -- I don't understand that. Is that a loss for the government here?
NEWT GINGRICH, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Well, I think if they believe they have enough evidence to convict him, going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be -- would hardly be seen as a loss.
I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They're not wearing a uniform. They're not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.
And so, we don't have a good set of rules. You see this with the McCain amendment that passed the Senate by -- with 98 votes on establishing boundaries in terms of not permitting torture. You see it in a project underway at the Defense Department. We're looking at what are the right ground rules.
And I suspect that part of what happened was a decision that they were in a stronger position both around the world and in the United States in terms of public opinion if they brought Padilla forward, proved they had a real case, and convicted him in a criminal court. That's my guess, but I don't have any inside information.
To sum up: During the Bush administration, Gingrich didn't think it was a "loss" to try Padilla in a civilian court. During the Obama administration, Gingrich claimed that no matter who the president is, "treating terrorists like criminals" is "wrong." Despite his protestations to the contrary, it seems it does matter to Gingrich who is president.
According to a February 11 NewsBusters post, Rush Limbaugh responded to an email requesting his reaction to being placed at number three on a Daily Beast list of the right's top 25 journalists with the following comment:
I don't deserve to be on the list. I'm not a journalist. I value my reputation much more than to agree to being a journo.
David Broder does not like politicians who lie. I know this because he said so himself, in an infamous 1998 Sally Quinn article about why the Washington Establishment was so angry at Bill Clinton for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky:
"The judgment is harsher in Washington," says The Post's Broder. "We don't like being lied to."
That suggestion -- that Washington, DC's elite residents take greater offense at being lied to than the simpletons outside the nation's capital -- is the kind of thing that would draw heaping piles of scorn from the political media had it come from a liberal Democrat. But it came from David Broder, beloved "dean" of the Washington Press corps, and so nobody said much of anything about his preening moral superiority.
Anyway: David Broder does not like politicians who lie. He does not like being lied to. Lying, according to David Broder, is a Very Bad Thing. So bad that David Broder suggested Clinton should resign because "he may well have lied to a federal grand jury." May well have -- the mere possibility that Clinton had lied about sex was enough for David Broder, who very much does not like lying politicians, to call for resignation.
Since I know how much David Broder hates politicians who lie, it was a little odd when he refused to call for President Bush's resignation, though Bush lied about matters far more grave than Monica Lewinsky, and though Broder denounced Bush as a "lawless and reckless" president who "started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution." I mean, if the possibility that Clinton had lied about sex was enough to necessitate his resignation, surely the certainty that Bush had lied, coupled with his "lawless and reckless" defiance of the Constitution should require nothing less?
I mean, it simply can't be that David Broder holds Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans, or that he thinks lying only counts as lying when it's about sex. Can it? No: That does not sound like the esteemed "dean." It can't be. Must be a fluke.
So, this morning I read Broder's celebration of Sarah Palin's virtues. Now, Sarah Palin, as you might remember, has built her entire national reputation on lies. From the moment John McCain plucked her out of obscurity in the summer of 2008 until the time she finishes her next sentence, she will have said little of any real significance that was true. Her repeated "bridge to nowhere" boast -- a remarkably enthusiastic and frequent lie. That bit about selling a state jet on e-Bay? Bunk. Her claim that Alaska produces 20 percent of America's energy? A lie in 2008, and still a lie today. "Death panels"? The lie of the year. You get the point: Sarah Palin tells lies.
But, oddly -- because, remember, he does not like being lied to -- David Broder didn't mention Palin's history of untruths in his column today. Well, I thought, Broder must have thought he had covered that ground often enough in the past that it could go unmentioned today. So I fired up the way-back machine and read all 23 Washington Post columns in which David Broder has mentioned Sarah Palin, certain that I would find numerous harsh denunciations of a politician who displays an open hostility towards the truth.
In doing so, I found Broder gushing over Palin's "deft humor and pointed questions" and wondering "Why in the world has the McCain campaign kept Palin under wraps" and praising her as "cool as a cucumber, comfortable with her talking points and unrattled by anything that was thrown at her." But that wasn't so shocking -- Broder did, after all, note in today's column that her tea party speech last weekend "was not the first time that Palin has impressed me."
But this part ... Well, this was a little surprising: Not once -- not one time -- in those 23 columns has Broder so much as hinted at Palin's dishonesty. Not even in a casual, polite "that wasn't quite true" kind of way.
Well, you could knock me over with a feather. I mean, David Broder can't stand being lied to. He told us himself. You remember: Back when he was talking about a Democrat, and the lies were about sex rather than everything else.
As we noted earlier, the WashPost's David Broder delivered an early Valentine to Sarah Palin in today's newspaper; the same day the WashPost reported that new polling data show Palin has never been less popular and less respected.
Unfortunately, Atlantic's Marc Ambinder had the same idea as Broder and chose today to publish this column (at CBSnews.com):
Is Sarah Palin Lucky or Savvy?
I'm not going to bother highlighting all the ways Ambinder details Palin's super-savvy-ness. You can go read the whole thing yourself. But keep in mind that, according to the latest ABC/WashPost poll, Palin has never been less popular. Even among Repubicans.
There must be a different definition of "savvy" I'm just not aware of.
UPDATED: It's contagious! Time's Joe Klein today:
It's Her Party: The Brilliance of Sarah Palin
Reporting for Newsweek from the Tea Party convention in Nashville, author Jonathan Kay ("I consider myself a conservative"), paints a rather damning portrait of the movement:
Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.
And behold the wonder here [emphasis added]:
Perhaps the most distressing part of all is that few media observers bothered to catalog these bizarre, conspiracist outbursts, and instead fixated on Sarah Palin's Saturday night keynote address. It is as if, in the current overheated political atmosphere, we all simply have come to expect that radicalized conservatives will behave like unhinged paranoiacs when they collect in the same room.
Amen to that.