ColorOfChange.org this week received confirmation from four more companies – ConAgra (maker of Healthy Choice products), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and RadioShack – pledging to pull their ads from Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck show. These new defections come on the heels of reports that Men's Wearhouse, State Farm and Sargento also pulled their ads in recent days. They join LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson and GEICO, who all pulled their ads from Glenn Beck after the news host called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people," on "Fox and Friends."
"…Upon review of this particular program, we have discontinued our advertising for all ConAgra Foods products during its airing," said Stephanie Childs, spokesperson for ConAgra Foods, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "We share your commitment to diversity in all areas of life and appreciate you sharing your concerns with us."
"We have specified that our ads will no longer run on Mr. Beck's show," said Sean Connor, Manager of Media Services and Purchasing for Sanofi-Aventis, in an e-mail to ColorOfChange.org. "We have included this show on a list of programming that should not be utilized within the Fox network buys. Thank you for drawing our attention to this matter."
"This confirms that there is no advertising we (RadioShack) [are] buying on the Glen Beck Show or anywhere on the Fox News Channel," said Dave Hamlin, Director of Media Services for RadioShack, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. "What viewers are seeing on FNC and Glen Beck is manufacturer advertising that has tagged their messages with "RadioShack" as the retail destination to purchase their product(s). In this most recent instance, it is most likely the product called magicJack that has tagged our name throughout their commercial."
"We've asked magicJack to immediately cease and desist running all commercials with our name tagged in the spot on FNC," Hamlin continued. "In fact, I just received verification from one our merchants that magicJack has confirmed the commercial will be pulled from the Fox News Channel rotation ASAP."
A spokesperson for Roche confirmed the company's decision to pull its ads during a phone conversation with ColorOfChange.org Tuesday, but the company has not issued a written statement.
"We are proud of all the companies who have stepped forward to pull their ads from Glenn Beck," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "It's becoming clear that many people feel the same outrage we feel and we applaud those companies who are taking a stand against Beck's hatred. We won't stop here – we're going to continue our fight to see that as many of Beck's advertisers pull their support as possible."
Two weeks ago, ColorOfChange.org called on its 600,000-plus members to sign a petition urging companies who advertise on Glenn Beck to cut off their advertising support of his work. Since then, more than 125,000 members have responded to the call by signing a petition directed at advertisers.
The ColorOfChange.org email urged members to go visit http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/, where they could send letters to executives of target companies. With more than 600,000 members, ColorOfChange.org is the largest African-American online political organization in the country.
From his latest column:
The Nazi comparisons from Rush Limbaugh; broadcaster Mark Levin asserting that President Obama is "literally at war with the American people"; former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claiming that the president was planning "death panels" to extirpate the aged and disabled; the charges that the president is a fascist, a socialist, a Marxist, an illegitimate Kenyan fraud, that he "harbors a deep resentment of America," that he feels a "deep-seated hatred of white people," that his government is preparing concentration camps, that it is operating snitch lines, that it is planning to wipe away American liberties": All this hysterical and provocative talk invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence...
It's not enough for conservatives to repudiate violence, as some are belatedly beginning to do. We have to tone down the militant and accusatory rhetoric.
Or does he just get paid to peddle partisan information? I'm leaning toward the latter.
From his WashTimes column this week [emphasis added]:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is having a hard time these days explaining the president's Israel policy to her Jewish constituents, blatantly lied and said that the protesters were wielding "swastikas and symbols like that."
Didn't we already go through this routine, and didn't NRO's Jonah Goldberg already sufficiently embarrass himself when he claimed Pelosi was "lying" about the swastika claim?
Guess Breitbart didn't get the memo:
And a bonus for Breitbart, from the Wall Street Journal:
Diane Campbell of Kingston, N.H., held a sign with Mr. Obama's face superimposed on a Nazi storm trooper, a sign, she said, that was made by her chronically ill mother..."Adolf Hitler was for exterminating the weak, not just the Jews and stuff, and socialism -- that's what's going to happen."
More GOP Noise Machine contortions about swastikas and Hitler. (It's the gift that keeps on giving.)
Read this confused post, as another right-wing blogger (theblogprof) tries to explain away yet another Nazi poster. The claim here is that an African-American man holding a huge Hitler-Obama poster at a recent rally outside a town hall hosted by Democrat John Dingell was actually a Dingell supporter. i.e. The sign-holder was a Democratic plant sent to make the GOP look bad.
That's an explosive charge. What was the blogger's proof that the poster-holder was really a Democratic plant? Answer: A clip from Neil Cavuto's show where a health care critic made the claim on TV. (i.e. the guy was "part of the Dingell operation.") In other words, the whole story's built around an unconfirmed, second-hand claim.
But seriously, theblogprof must have additional proof that the man holding the Hitler-Obama poster and then handing out Dingell flyers was the same guy, right? There's no way theblogprof would hatch a conspiracy theory like that without photos and/or video to nail down his tall tale, right?
Ha! If you think that's the case than you don't read the right-wing blogs very often, because trust me, facts are optional.
But wait, it gets better. Because over at RedState, a writer zeroes in on the same Hitler-Obama poster at the same Dingell event and posts a video from Steve Gutowski who uncovers a completely different plot. According to Gutowski, the African-American sign-holder is actually a follower of nut ball Lyndon LaRouche. (Thank God!)
So how cool is that? Right-wing blog readers, desperate for political cover over the whole swastika thing, actually have a choice of how they can explain away the Hitler-Obama poster at the Dingell rally. They can choose Door No. 1, where theblogprof insists the sign was produced by a Dingell supporter; somebody who was was "part of the Dingell operation." Or they can pick Door No. 2, where a posted video at RedState claims the sign was produced by a LaRouche supporter. (How long until some blogger today claims the sign-holder was both a Dingell and LaRouche supporter?)
Like I've said, you can't make this stuff up.
UPDATED: My favorite laugh-out-loud part of the RedState post featuring the Gutowski video, which explains the sign-holder is a LaRouche supporter, is that right below the video RedState makes this contradictory claim [emphasis added]:
The Hitler sign at the Dingell town hall was carried by a Dingell supporter.
Can't RedState make up its mind?
And then, playing a right-wing game of telephone, RedState improve the "facts," and announces:
The Hitler sign at the Dingell town hall was carried by an OBAMACARE supporter.
Eyewitnesses caught this genius outside after the meeting HANDING OUT OBAMACARE MATERIALS.
C'mon RedState, read the (make believe) script. The guy was allegedly handing out Dingell materials, not Obama.
Picking up what the right-wing mob started yesterday, Foxnews.com posted an article about whether or not Obama "recognized" an 11-year-old girl who asked a question at his New Hampshire town hall forum this week. It's part of Michelle Malkin's pointless conspiracy theory about town hall's being stage.
The Fox headline [emphasis added]:
White House Says Girl With Campaign Ties Chosen at 'Random' to Speak at Obama Town Hall
OMG. The girl's in elementary school for crying out loud! How can she have "campaign ties"?? This is just demented.
The only "ties" are the fact that her mom was an Obama donor and supporter in 2008. In other words, her mom did what a few million other Americans did last fall, yet suddenly in the eyes of Fox News that means the woman's daughter has "campaign ties"? And for right-wing bloggers, that means the kid's fair game for ridicule?
UPDATED: As Bob Cesca noted, this kid crusade isn't just creepy. It's dangerous.
The CNN host recently welcomed Kenneth Gladney, the conservative who claims he was savagely beaten by union thugs after a St. Louis town hall forum last week where a GOP mini-mob raised a ruckus.
We wrote about Gladney over the weekend and how the YouTube clip of his "beating" actually shows him being pulled to ground for approximately two seconds before he jumped back up to his feet, apparently unharmed. In TV interviews Gladney's attorney seems to claim the real beating happened before the YouTube clip began. But none of the severe injuries Gladney later claimed he suffered were visible on the video which definitely captured the end of the scuffle.
Anyway, Dobbs hosted Gladney and his attorney, and while the attorney went on and on about how union thugs had kicked Gladney in the head and the side, Dobbs helpfully announced [emphasis added]:
Yeah, this video is pretty declarative as to the points that you're making that we're watching right now. I don't know whether you can see it. But obviously we and the audience are seeing it.
We in the audience were seeing Gladney get kicked in the head and side? Oh brother. Maybe that's what Dobbs saw in his fertile imagination. But what CNN viewers actually saw at that moment on their TV screens was tape of Gladney walking around looking relatively unharmed.
(h/t Crooks & Liars)
Yeah, it turns out LaRouche and his followers--not Republicans!--are responsible for all the Hitler-Obama posters found among the town hall mini-mobs. Or so says TWS.
It's fun to watch the GOP Noise Machine continues to tie itself into a pretzel over Rep. Nancy Pelosi's completely accurate claim that some mini-mob members were showing up with "swastikas and symbols like that." Right-wing bloggers and writers and have been whiffing at that pitch for days now.
Their latest line of defense has been, OK, some Nazi posters did appear at town halls (sorry, Rush), but they were planted by political opponents because conservatives would never (ever!) sink to such lows. And John McCormack, at least based on his Weekly Standard headline, seemed to have nailed the story down:
Video: Democrats Bring Obama-As-Hitler Signs to Town Halls
Couldn't be more clear, right? TWS had video proof that Democratic trolls had planted Hitler posters amidst the mini-mob members in order to make conservatives look bad. Scoop!
It turns out TWS had found a YouTube clip that report how followers of conspiracy nut ball Lyndon LaRouche brought Hitler-Obama signs to a town hall forum, and since LaRouche is a Democrat (who knew?), it's Democrats who are responsible for the Hitler-Obama signs. It's Democrats who think Obama is just like Hitler, so leave the mini-mobs alone.
(You can stop laughing now.)
But actually, even if you buy the comical idea that LaRouche's deluded followers are true Blue Staters (LaRouche has about as much cache among Democrats as Tony Zirkle does among Republicans; look it up), the YouTube video actually raises more troubling questions for the TWS crew. Because even though it purports to show LaRouche followers with a Hitler-Obama sign at a town hall gathering, the video also makes perfectly clear that none of the other mini-mob members objected. The Hitler-Obama sign fit right in among the mini-mob members.
If TWS's larger point were accurate, if conservatives would never (ever!) bring Nazi propaganda to an anti-Obama rally, than why weren't the LaRouche followers asked to leave or asked to destroy their signs? Indeed, have we seen a single report during all this mini-mob nonsense in which a one conservative confronted a Nazi-waving protesters and complained that the Hitler stuff was grotesque and out of bounds? Have any of the Nazi-waving protesters been shouted down or told to get lost by the mini-mob?
Indeed, has anyone at TWS denounced Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for using Nazi rhetoric in recent days?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Truth is, If the Noise Machine's going to try to rule by the mob, then it's going to get tarred by the same mob, no matter how many YouTube clips The Weekly Standard posts.
UPDATED: Wonkette has more.
Yesterday, TVNewser reported that CNN president Jon Klein "asked his show producers to avoid booking talk radio hosts." According to TVNewser, this was Klein's reasoning:
"Complex issues require world class reporting," Klein is quoted as saying, adding that talk radio hosts too often add to the noise, and that what they say is "all too predictable."
TVNewser writes that Lou Dobbs -- who hosts both a radio show and a CNN show -- is "presumably not affected by this."
First Andrea Mitchell attributed Hillary Clinton's response to a question in Congo to a "bad hair day," and now Tina Brown joins in with an over-the-top bit of psychobabble that also invokes Clinton's hair as an explanation:
And not only that, but (and I say this in solidarity, not belittlement) the African humidity had wreaked havoc on her hair. It had gone all flat and straight, which puts any woman in a bad humor. (Let's not forget: It was a sympathetic reference to the female-specific chore of keeping perfectly coiffed that made Hillary's eyes fill with tears back in New Hampshire.) Plus, the grueling State Department schedule means these days she can never get to the gym.
Believe it or not, that isn't any crazier than the rest of Brown's fevered imaginings.
And like Maureen Dowd, Brown expects us to believe that Hillary Clinton's response was caused in part by her annoyance at Bill Clinton celebrating his birthday "at such a fancy, high-priced restaurant as Craftsteak?" I'll say this again: Yes, Craftsteak is obscenely expensive, but I'm pretty sure the Clintons, worth tens of millions of dollars, can cover a dinner there.
Is there some of Mad-Libs book of pre-fabricated insanely speculative columns about the Clintons these people all picked up at a mid-1990s CPAC convention? If so, how was I not aware of it earlier?
Anyway, all of this crazytalk about flat hair and expensive steaks is as unnecessary as it is implausible. I'm not saying Clinton was right to respond the way she did -- but her response was perfectly understandable based on nothing more than the content of the question as it was relayed to her. There's really no need to invent some fantasy in which she was cranky because her husband sprung for the Kobe beef on his birthday.