This, from the site that can't read WH visitor's logs, doesn't understand pop culture, can't read polling data, doesn't know what a hate crime is, is clueless about the law, openly mocks Christmas, has trouble reading English, and launched one of the most incompetent smear campaigns in internet history.
And that was just 2009!
So yes, by all means Breitbart & co., please explain to us who's "credible."
UPDATED: Keep in mind that Breitbart's Big Government is a "conservative journalism" site that refuses to post corrections. Although honestly, with that kind of track record, can you blame him? If Breitbart actually acknowledged the site's flood of errors, he'd have to hire a full-time editor just to handle corrections.
UPDATED: P.S. Did Breitbart ever figure out who those community organizers were praying to? (That one never gets old...)
UPDATED: Start the clock running. Since I've critiqued Big Government's substance, or lack thereof, it's only a matter of time before Breitbart responds with a wave of incoherent, name-calling tweets. He never deals with substance. Behold the future of "conservative journalism."
UPDATED: Note that it was Breitbart who sat by quietly on Fox News while fellow, factually-challenged guest Ann Coulter tried to re-launch the Obama-attended-a-madrassa smear.
From Jim Hoft's January 3 Gateway Pundit post, headlined "After Passenger Saves Plane From Terrorist Bombing- New Rules Require Heroic Passengers to Stay Seated During Last Hour of Flight":
It's an Obama World... Up is down, big is small, losing jobs is creating or saving jobs, and heroes are asked to be seated.
Yesterday, Jasper Schuringa, a video director and producer from Amsterdam, told CNN how he helped the cabin crew to subdue Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old who reportedly ignited a small explosive device on board the plane Friday as it prepared to land in Detroit.
In response to this courageous act of heroism, the Obama Administration enacted new policies today. The new rules will force heroic passengers to stay in their seats for the final hour of their flight before landing.
Could I possibly make this stuff up?
Althouse even dreams up how Obama would announce to the country his plans to not run for reelection. Hint: It's completely illogical [emphasis added]:
I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing... With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office — the Presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.
That's right, Althouse thinks Obama won't run for reelection because of "partisan divisions."
UPDATED: Some common sense commentary from National Review Online's Mike Potemra, who's equally perplexed by the right-wing blogosphere's reaction to a single, benign Obama photo:
A picture of Obama and Biden going around on the Internet is attracting some negative comments, but I haven't yet seen any real explanation of how the photo is actually unflattering. To me, the president looks like a tired man with a tough job, having to go to a formal event at the end of the day when he'd rather be at home relaxing, and the James Bond-style crossed legs show he's trying to make the best of his lot. I'd appreciate it someone could explain to me what's so bad about the picture; until then, I will suspect that this is a case of the wish being father to the thought.
Fox's Brit Hume says Tiger Woods' faith is inadequate, urges him to become a Christian:
"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith," said Hume. "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, 'Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."
If this wasn't Fox News, I'd take "Tomorrow, 2 pm" in the when-will-Hume-apologize pool. But it is Fox, so "the Fifth of Never" seems like a safer choice.
This one's a couple days old, but it still deserves to be mocked. And yes, it's by the GOP's favorite polling firm, Rasmussen, which seems to have a patent on asking really dumb, and misleading, polling questions designed solely to generate dubious "buzz."
Behold the latest [emphasis added]:
The good news for Senator Ben Nelson is that he doesn't have to face Nebraska voters until 2012.
If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%.
That's right, Rasmussen is now polling hypothetical election match-ups that may or may not take place 33 months from now. I believe in the polling industry the Rasmussen survey would be what's known as "utterly useless."
UPDATED: Turns out lots of people have problems with Rasmussen's work.
The first Sunday show lineup of the New Year looks to be focused on the aftermath of the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253.
Among the guests appearing tomorrow will be Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on CNN's State of the Union. Will guest host Gloria Borger ask DeMint about his vote against the FY 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which included $4,358,076,000 in funding for screening operations by TSA, $1,116,406,000 of which was specifically for explosives detection systems? [Senate Vote #323, 10/20/09]
Or how about his vote against the Improving America's Security Act of 2007, which implemented recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including several provisions related to airline security? [Senate Vote #284, 7/26/07]
Terry Moran, who is guest-hosting ABC's This Week, is including Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) on his roundtable. Given Dick Cheney's recent attacks on President Obama for not using the phrase "war on terror," will Moran remind the Congressman of his own May 2008 comment that "the phrase 'war on terror' was the 'dumbest term...you could use'"? [Financial Times, 5/28/08]
Finally, Bill Kristol will take his regular spot on Fox News Sunday's panel. Will the other panelists allow him to blame Northwest 253 on Obama, or will they remind him of his previous statement that 9/11 is part of Clinton's "legacy"? [WeeklyStandard.com, 8/28/08]
May's December 31 post on National Review Online's blog The Corner, headlined "A Bipartisan Proposal":
Step (1): Return all Gitmo detainees to Yemen.
Step (2): Use Predator missiles to strike the baggage-claim area 20 minutes after they arrive.
Just an idea.
TPM Media's Zachary Roth reported earlier in the week that the political action committee that organized the Tea Party Express -- Our Country Deserves Better PAC -- funneled almost two-thirds of its spending from July to November back to the political consulting firm from which it was spawned, Russo, Marsh, and Associates. More than $850,000 of the money the supposedly grassroots PAC collected went to the firm of GOP political operatives who ran it.
For those who may have forgotten, the Tea Party Express was the faux-grassroots operation that Fox News hopped aboard in late August, after the network's promotion of the health care town hall meeting disruptions but before they started flogging the 9-12 protest. (It's so hard to keep Fox's political activism straight!) It was a nationwide bus tour organized by a political action committee whose mission is to oppose President Obama and other Democrats; with a pedigree like that, how could Fox resist?
Fox News heavily promoted the Tea Party Express; the Our Country Deserves Better PAC even used Fox's promotion in a fundraising email. Then Fox's Griff Jenkins hit the trail with the Express, following that bus around the country, throwing journalistic integrity aside as he declared its riders "the America that Washington forgot."
But somehow, Jenkins missed out on the real story: how loyal tea-party-goers were separated from their hard-earned cash, which was funneled to fat cat Republican political consultants. Russo, Marsh, and Associates salutes you, Fox News. They could have scammed the tea partiers without you, but it probably wouldn't have been nearly as lucrative.
The GOP-friendly polling firm continues to struggle with the basic understanding of terrorism investigations. Here's a finding from Rasmussen's poll in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day attack [emphasis added]:
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.
Flashback: Rasmussen advertised the same ignorance in the wake of the Ft. Hood handgun massacre in November, when the polling firm asked whether that attack should be handled by the military as a terrorist attack, or by civilian authorities as a criminal one.
We highlighted the obvious flaws in the question back thend. And guess what? The the flaws still hold today:
Why is it an either/or question? Why are respondents asked to pick between a "military" terrorist investigation and "civilian" criminal investigation? It makes no sense. First of all, a terrorist investigation, by definition, is a criminal one. Second, it's the FBI (i.e. a "civilian" authority) that has been investigating "terrorists acts" in this country for generations. Civilian authorities launch terrorist investigations all the time, so why does Rasmussen pretend that only "military authorities" do that? Why does Rasmussen suggest that if civilians investigate Ft. Hood, then it won't be a terrorist investigation?
Why did Rasmussen formulate a question that makes no sense?
You have to credit Andrew Breitbart for perseverance. Less than a week after Ornamentgate blew up in the blogger's face, he's back with yet another dubious accusation. And just like his last smear, this one crumbles with the least bit of scrutiny.
Yesterday, Breitbart's BigGovernment.com claimed that the "Bertha E. Lewis" who visited the White House in September, according to recently released visitor logs, was in fact ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis. In a breathtaking bit of hubris, the post links Lewis' purported visit to the heavily edited ACORN tapes Breitbart released that month, expressing shock that Obama had subsequently "acted almost as if he'd never heard of the group," even as he had just met with its CEO.
The post concludes:
Of course, it is possible that this isn't ACORN's Bertha Lewis. After a previous dump of visitor records listed the name, Jeremiah Wright, the White House said, 'oh, that was a different Jeremiah Wright.' The media, of course, said, 'okay,' and never followed up. So, maybe the Bertha Lewis listed here isn't the CEO of ACORN. Just another Bertha Lewis who gets special weekend access to the White House Residence, complete with an extra-special staff tour. Sure, possible, but we'd love to see a bookie's odds on that.
It's not clear how President Obama meeting with the CEO of ACORN would be problmatic anywhere outside the right-wing fantasy world in which the group is the root of all evil, but guess what? Politico's Ben Smith called the White House. Yup, it's a different Bertha Lewis (a whitepages.com search turns up more than 100 matches, go figure). He also called ACORN. Yup, Lewis' middle initial isn't "E."
Looks like there's more egg all over Breitbart's face (and that of Glenn Reynolds and the other right-wing bloggers who ran with his report).
I can't wait for BigJournalism.
UPDATE: Fox Nation is now blaring the headline, "ACORN CEO Visited White House Week Before Scandal Broke." This is what happens when you run with a Breitbart story: you end up being embarrassed.