Because right-wing blogger Erick Erickson actually posted the item on March 31. In it he demanded:
At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?
Why could that double as a punchline? Because, as blogger Matthew Yglesias notes, Erickson's call for mob violence was prompted by "an environmental regulation relating to dishwasher detergent."
On Monday, the conservative writer published an unintentional side-splitter in the WashTimes about how vicious, unethical liberals were inundating right-blog sites and trashing the the comment sections. Breitbart was, if nothing else, quite animated:
Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.
He lamented that some big name GOP blog sites even had to pull the plug on comments because so many liberal "goons and liars" had infested the sites.
But this recent passage from the right-wing blog Little Green Footballs caught our eye [emphasis added]:
Good for David Horowitz; his latest column for FrontPage makes many of the same points I've been hammering away at since Barack Obama was elected (leading to a series of meltdowns in our comment threads, and a barrage of hate mail that shows no sign of letting up). Horowitz is on the mark when he says way too many on the right are now suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Here's the context: LGF was cheering a column that conservative David Horowitz wrote at FrontPageMag that raised concerns about how conservatives were wallowing in Obama Derangement Syndrome; that they were reacting to Obama's presidency with unhinged rhetoric, etc. LGF agreed, and mentioned it had been making the same points on its blog: conservatives had become unhinged under Obama.
And what was the reader reaction to that critique? LGF's reader comment threads got trashed by conservatives. LGF was inundated with hate mail from fellow conservatives.
See the irony? Breitbart whines in the pages of the WashTimes about some diabolical left-wing plan to sabotage conservative blog sites with nasty comments. (Breitbart provides zero proof, BTW, that such a plot exists.) But when you poke around the right-wing blogs, what do you find? Complaints that conservative readers are sabotaging conservative sites that have the nerve to criticize people suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Seems that before Breitbart blames liberals again for trashing right-wing Internet sites, he might want to talk to LGF.
Current MSNBC Chyron: "GOP RELEASES DETAILED BUDGET PLAN WITH SPECIFIC NUMBERS"
Prediction: The media will be so impressed that the GOP managed to produce a document that contains "specific numbers" rather than bizarre line-drawings, they won't bother to assess whether those numbers are accurate or reasonable, or whether the "plan" would be good or bad for the country.
MRC's Brent Bozell has a problem with the latest ABC/Washington Post poll. But Bozell doesn't object to the poll's slanted and inaccurate suggestion that Democrats have a history of being reckless with the public's money. Here's what he's upset about:
It has become almost amusing, watching how the so-called "news" media are manipulating their own polls to keep the political weather sunny for their hero. The Washington Post kicked off President Barack Obama's European trip with the headline "Blame For Downturn Not Fixed on Obama." Of course, what was "fixed" was the poll itself.
They did the usual tricks for a more liberal sample of "public opinion" - they polled on the weekend and oversampled Democrats (36 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican). By themselves, these things are shameless - but expected. And still that wasn't enough of a slant. Check out the way this question was asked by the Post pollsters.
"How much of the blame do you think [fill in the blank] deserves for the country's economic situation?" The choices were corporations, banks, consumers, the Bush team, and the Obama administration. There's a built-in pro-Obama bias in there already: assigning blame to Obama for the current economy when he's been in office for nine weeks just seems harsh to most people.
I'm sorry: What? Brent Bozell thinks asking if Barack Obama deserves some blame for the economic situation demonstrates "pro-Obama bias" because most people don't think he deserves such blame?
By that logic, asking if people approve of Obama's job performance reflects "pro-Obama bias" because most people do. And poll questions that asked about George W. Bush's job performance must have demonstrated "anti-Bush bias." By that logic, the only unbiased poll questions are those that yield 50-50 results.
That's insane. Simply insane.
But that's the conservatives' idea of "media bias" -- any question or fact that is inconvenient for conservatives must reflect "bias."
By the way, Bozell's certainty that polling over a weekend yields a "more liberal sample" is misplaced. Many pollsters are, indeed, skeptical of polling conducted over weekends, but there is nothing approaching a consensus about how such polling might skew. Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, for example, both avoid weekends:
Voters who do answer calls those nights add up to a "more downscale" group, McInturff said -- more likely to be Democratic. That discovery is a legacy of the Reagan years. "Reagan's support would dip in polling on Friday and Saturday nights," McInturff said, "and then on Monday it would be right back where it was."
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake avoids Fridays, too, but for the opposite reason. "We never poll on Friday night because more Democrats are likely to be out," she said. "Friday is bowling night and there are Friday night football games, so you get fewer blue-collar people at home.
"Same for Saturday," she said. "Because younger suburban couples, two-earner families, are out doing stuff. Sunday night is a good time to get everybody, but we never call on Sunday morning because religious voters are likely to resent it. You don't poll during the Super Bowl football game if you want men."
In November, 2006, Slate's "Explainer" column addressed this issue:
In theory, younger people are more likely to be out on Friday and Saturday nights, which would make them less likely to be included in the sample.
What would that mean for the results of a given study? Weekend polling would skew the sample away from the young and active types and toward the oldsters who sit at home. That doesn't mean the weekend poll gives more credence to the elderly vote. It might mean just the opposite: Pollsters can correct for having too many old people by giving extra weight to everyone else. In that case, the opinions of the few young people who are in the sample would count extra.
While it's a common claim that weekend polls favor the Democrats, there isn't much hard evidence to support that idea. One of the best studies of this question was conducted by two polling experts at ABC News. Gary Langer and Daniel Merkle looked at the data from ABC's tracking polls for the last three presidential elections. They compared results from people reached on Sunday through Thursday with those reached on Friday and Saturday and found no difference.
Newsbusters is running a poll asking readers whether Barack Obama will be a one term president. Just one problem -- they forgot to include a "yes" option:
Keep in mind: Newsbusters is the work of the Media Research Center, the Right's premiere media criticism organization. Little wonder Tom DeLay recently said the conservative movement lacks organizations that can "match Media Matters."
Here's the "news":
With President Barack Obama showing the ailing U.S. auto industry some tough love Monday, POLITICO wondered -- what's in the driveways of White House aides? A lot of foreign cars, as it turns out...The lot was sprinkled with BMWs, Mercedes, Hondas, Toyotas, Saabs, Audis, Volkswagens and a Volvo.
Here's how the item would have made sense [emphasis added]:
With President Barack Obama showing the ailing U.S. auto industry some tough love Monday, and urging everybody to buy American cars, POLITICO wondered -- what's in the driveways of White House aides? A lot of foreign cars, as it turns out.
But Obama didn't do that, so the item's pretty much pointless. Also, aren't lots of BMW's, Mercedes, Hondas and Toyotas, y'know, made in America these days?
A couple things are goofy about this Bridget Johnson piece, in which she seems to be auditioning for a gig at Politico. First, many of the examples she sites as Obama "gaffes" aren't actually gaffes. And second, she suggests it's the new media landscape of "Instant Internet communication and an explosion in political commentary," that has put the new (Democratic) president under such a media microscope.
Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure when President Bush left office two months ago the Internet, as well as the 24-hour news cycle, existed. So why the double standard for Obama?
But back to the gaffes. Here's how Johnson lays them out at the top of the story:
Last week was notable for budget battles and a new Afghanistan strategy, rather than for headline-hogging gaffes, although the president didn't escape a few media jeers for his reliance on a giant TV screen in place of his trademark teleprompter to feed him his lines at Tuesday's primetime press conference.
His careful responses to reporters' questions, in an appearance that many commentators branded as boring, didn't wander into such hot-button territory as he found himself in the previous week when he told Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" that his bowling skills were akin to those of the Special Olympics.
I can only find one actual gaffe; the ill-advised Special Olympics comment. But how is using a large teleprompter an embarrassing miscue? The pointless issue is only a topic of debate because the press corps wants to make it one. Same with Obama's "boring" press conference. Suddenly, if presidents are articulate and philosophical while discussing the pressing issues of the day at a White House press conference the press dubs that a blunder?
The Hill published an article about Obama's gaffes. But in truth the miscues often cited are errors in judgment made by the press. Sort of ironic, no?
Which of these statements comes closer to your view: (Beneath it all, Obama is an old-style, tax-and-spend Democrat.) -OR- (Obama is a new-style Democrat who will be careful with the public's money.)
The only president to balance a budget in the past 40 years was Democrat Bill Clinton, so ABC and the Post should probably drop this nonsense about Democrats not being careful with the public's money.
Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush -- both Republicans, one of them universally embraced as a role model by the GOP -- ran up huge amounts of debt. And they did so by doing things like launching unnecessary wars against countries that didn't attack us and giving massive tax cuts to billionaires.
So, when can we expect to see ABC and the Washington Post ask the public questions premised on the Republicans' history of fiscal recklessness?
MSNBC anchor Melissa Francis, on Michelle Obama: "Is there a danger in looking too glamorous during a recession, though, on a more serious note? I mean, we're talking about clothes, we're having a good time, but obviously, you know, there's a recession going on right now."
That's MSNBC's idea of a "serious note"? How about considering whether MSNBC should devote segments to Michelle Obama's clothes in the first place?
UPDATE: Less than an hour later, MSNBC devotes another segment to Michelle Obama's wardrobe, during which Norah O'Donnell said: " You know, we've got this banner up that says 'What will she wear?' I mean, isn't that sort of demeaning, that that's all that this first lady is about, by saying 'what is she going to wear?'"
She then spent the remainder of the segment discussing what Obama will wear with Washington Post reporter Robin Givhan.
So, in the past hour, MSNBC has told us that these are serious times -- too serious for Michelle Obama to be glamorous. And they've told us that it is "sort of demeaning" to focus on what Obama will wear. And they've devoted two different segments to focusing on precisely that "demeaning" topic.
Here is today's daily Red Scare Index -- our search of CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, MSNBC and CNBC for uses of the following terms: Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic, Communism, Communist, Communistic, Marxism and Marxist.
Here are the numbers for yesterday, Monday, March 30, 2009:
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 34
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 24
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 0
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 6
CNN Headline News: 7
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 0
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 7
Fox News Channel: 29
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 19
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 10
Fox Business Network: 9
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 8
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 1
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 5
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 0
Socialism, Socialist, Socialistic: 2
Communism, Communist, Communistic: 0
The above numbers are the result of a TVeyes.com power search for these terms on these networks.