Greg Sargent raises the possibility that Sean Hannity's jealousy may be getting the better of him. Overshadowed in recent months by FOX colleague Glenn Beck, Hannity is waging a vicious smear campaign against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings.
Just last night, Hannity claimed (citing a Washington Times report) that Jennings covered up a "statutory rape." But evidence indicates the episode in question was not statutory rape -- the individual involved was at the legal age of consent.
Falsely accusing someone of covering up the rape of a minor is a pretty sleazy move, even for Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity doesn't have much credibility outside the right-wing fever swamps -- but he probably has more than Beck. For now. Sargent thinks Hannity's jealousy may be getting him in trouble:
So what's driving Hannity's jihad? One wonders whether it's driven by the fact that Beck is experiencing a ratings surge that has to have Hannity spooked big time. The just-released Fox News third quarter ratings show that Beck's surge dwarfs Hannity's by a wide margin.
Beck's overall viewership has climbed an astonishing 89%, and in the key 25-54 demo it has exploded by 136%. By contrast, Hannity's overall viewership has climbed a measly nine percent, and in the key demo it's jumped only 17%.
Pretty paltry performance, given all the passions unleashed by the Age of Obama. What's more, Beck inhabits the lowly 5 PM slot while Hannity enjoys the plum 9 PM perch.
Would Hannity be pursuing Jennings scalp if Beck hadn't seen his popularity surge in the wake of Jones' firing? Maybe. At the very least, though, maybe this explains the zeal driving Hannity. He wants his own scalp! Call it a quest for Beckian glory...
The recent hand-wringing over the at Times has centered around outside partisan claims that the newspaper's been too slow to pick up on the hot issues bubbling up from the right-wing; that the Times just isnt' in tune with Conservative media and opinion these days. So steps are being taken at the Times. The situation will be remedied.
Still, I'm with the Daily Howler on this one: The daily newspaper does have a problem covering conservatives, and especially the conservative media in America. But rather of not paying enough attention to all the supposedly important stories the right-wing breaks, the real problem is that the Times has remained dutifully silent for years about the avalanche of misinformation the GOP Noise Machine spreads around.
Wrote the Howler [emphasis added]:
For years, the Times has "had trouble" telling readers about the giant mountains of bullsh*t emitting from these swamps. For decades, they have run and hid from the ugliest, stupidest stories which have "arisen from this world." They ran and hid when this fetid world accused the Clintons of serial murders. When the Times reviewed Ann Coulter's first major book, it ran and hid from all the nonsense found inside its covers. During that same era, the Times actively invented the Whitewater pseudo-controversy, and the fake phony "lies" of Al Gore, of course. Sometimes, the Times has promoted this world's phony claims. But when it doesn't promote such claims, it turns a blind eye to the nonsense.
The New York Times has run and hid from the world of pseudo-conservative talk—when it wasn't actively involved in actively pimping that world's frameworks, of course. This big newspaper has simply refused to address the world of pseudo-conservative disinformation and hysteria. Seeing no evil and hearing no evil has long been this paper's MO.
She was on Fox News last night, hating on the Chicago Olympic bid, going on and on about how Obama lobbying for the 2016 Games is really just "political payback" for Mayor Daley. If this were sane analysis, Malkin would be suggesting that Obama had benefited greatly in the past from Daley's political largess, and that lobbying on behalf of the Chicago Olympic bid was a way to repay Daley for the many political gifts he'd given Obama over the years.
But of course it's Michelle Malkin we're talking about, and she seems to have no idea what the political relationship between Daley and Obama has been over the years. Instead, by "political payback," and the all the talk of Chicago "cronies" and "corruption," what she's really saying is Obama is from Chicago and he knows political players there. Period.
If Malkin or anybody else at Fox News was the least bit interested in the facts (don't laugh!) about the Daley/Obama relationship, then they can turn to this 2008 Chicago Tribune blog post by David Medall [emphasis added]:
What's also true, however, is that through most of Obama's political career in Chicago he operated on the fringes of the political machine and never fully immersed himself in the belly of its operations. Obama's message of inclusion, his attention to the plight of the less fortunate, and his personal sense of morality--these aspects of Obama's character made him a favorite among reformers such as the former federal judge Abner Mikva and Cook County commissioner Forrest Claypool.
Even though he was a state legislator from the city, Obama made sure to maintain a safe distance from Mayor Richard M. Daley and his cronies. When Obama's wife, Michelle, told her husband that she was considering working in city hall, Obama waved yellow caution flags because he worried that Michelle was too straightforward and straight-talking for the backroom dealing of the Daley administration.
In my first extended interview with Obama in December 2003, I asked him to define his relationship with the mayor. Obama winced and paused before finally responding, "Cordial, not close." Since then, Obama has grown far chummier with Daley, but nothing more accurately sums up the ties between Obama and the vaunted Chicago Machine than his own words way back then: "Cordial, not close."
Here's Malkin on Fox News creating her own parallel universe narrative about Chicago politics.
In a Sept. 30 post at Publius' Forum (copied at TheRealityCheck.org), longtime NewsBusters misleader Warner Todd Huston concedes that John L. Perry's Newsmax column advocating a military coup against President Obama "really does not add to the national debate" (yet defends the guy by asserting that it was "all speculation and phrased as a question, not asserted as fact or presented as imminent"). But then he writes:
But there is one tiny, little, bitty fact about this story and its author that every single one of these lefty sites that are railing about this story have left out.
The fact of the matter is that John L. Perry is not a conservative. In fact his bio page says that he's worked for Jimmy Carter, a Democrat governor of Florida and other Democrat Party institutions.
With all that background as a liberal democrat, Perry does not fit the normal image of a "right wing conservative." Yet not on eof the lefty sites going nuts on this story have mentioned this.
Warner curiously fails to mention that all of these "liberal democrat" connections occurred well over 30 years ago.
Further, Warner's claim is evidence that he has never read anything written by Perry, who has written for the right-wing Newsmax since 1999. In addition to his orgy of hatred against Obama, Perry has repeatedly demonstrated his right-wing credentials, and is particularly enamored with Sarah Palin. Sept. 1, 2008:
When you buck the local political establishment and stand up for honesty in government, people know what you're doing. In Alaska, they remember and adore Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin for that. They know her job was a lot harder than being mayor of a big city where you are a stranger to most constituents.
Those qualities do qualify this strong woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency - a condescending Barack Obama to the contrary notwithstanding.
Voters need not be predictable, stereotyped herds as Barack Obama cynically sees them. They can become their own independent mavericks, standing apart from the herd. Sarah Palin gets this. So does John McCain, who chose her.
People can identify with parents like Sarah and Todd Palin, who are not, thank God, embarrassed to be seen loving God's children. That difference is what is driving political elites crazy with fear -- fear that she will win and they will lose.
The Republican road back to the White House in 2012 looks a whole heck of a lot clearer and brighter now that it leads right through downtown Wasilla, Alaska (known also as Hometown, USA).
Only the losing vice-presidential aspirant, Sarah Palin, and her accidental, de facto running mate, Joe the plumber, spoke the middle-class language with believability. It came too late in the game.
Unless Huston can prove there's a huge "liberal Democrat" base Palin has tapped into, we can safely say without fear of contradiction that Perry is, in fact, a conservative.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) recently made headlines by bluntly attacking conservatives for lacking a systematic health insurance reform plan. The following day, he returned to the House floor and called for an end to what he termed a "holocaust" caused by the failings of America's health care system.
While Grayson's language was certainly provocative, his passion and sense of urgency are understandable. A new study conducted by the Harvard Medical School estimates that 45,000 Americans die every year because of our system's flaws.
Despite such realities, Erick Erickson, editor of the leading conservative blog RedState, was incensed by Grayson's language. "The holocaust was real with a real meaning," he wrote yesterday. "Roping it into the health care debate cheapens what it was all about."
Which means that we should all look forward to Erickson's upcoming denunciations of the following conservative media figures:
I ask because Davis publishes a tsk-tsk column today in The Hill in which he scolds liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas for making a factual error.
Now, I'm all for fact-checking, and as Davis points out, Moulitsas dutifully corrected his mistake. But it's monumentally comical for Davis to spend an entire column lecturing bloggers about how they have to be more vigilant about their fact-checking (they need to be "100 percent accurate") without setting aside even a single sentence to note that, oh yeah, the conservative blogosphere today is pretty much fueled by purposeful lies and "mistakes."
Davis's approach is so typical of the Beltway elites: Liberal bloggers (rightfully so) are held to a high standard of accuracy and fair play. Yet conservative bloggers can make up and post whatever BS they want, and Villagers like Davis don't so boo.
It's a couple days old, but this is pretty weak stuff from Politifact and deserves a quick look.
Following the right-wing's freakout regarding second graders who sang Obama's praise during Black History Month, Politifact decided to determine whether the allegations in RNC chief Michael Steele's fundraising letter, in which he denounced the school children's performance, were true.
In his plea for cash, Steele denounced the song as "indoctrination" and an example of "fanaticism" that was sweeping the country. He also claimed the performance represented, "the type of propaganda you would see in Stalin's Russia or Kim Jong Il's North Korea."
Incredibly, Politifact concluded Steele's claims were true. Actually, Politifact punted on most of Steele's outrageous allegations:
You can argue whether or not Steele laid the political rhetoric on a little too thick.
The fact we wanted to check was the question that immediately popped into our head when we saw the video, "Did this really happen at a public school?"
Oh brother. Steele claimed the kids were part of a propaganda exercises straight out of communist Russia, and were the victims of insidious "indoctrination." But Politifact didn't want to bother itself with those fiery allegations. (It's merely "rhetoric.") Instead, it simply wanted to determine if the video took place in a public school.
Gee, that must have been tricky since, y'know, the public school in question confirmed the video was filmed there.
Next time Politifact is confronted with egregious, fact-free allegations by the RNC chief, researchers there ought to not look away in order to confirm a mundane fact that's not even in dispute.
From an October 1 "You Decide" online poll on FoxNews.com:
This is why it's hard to take the Beltway press corps seriously. After weeks of teeth-gnashing about how Obama was supposedly overexposed, The Note switches gears:
Remember back when President Obama was everywhere?
A president whose new, new push on health care was all about active engagement, and flooding the messaging zone, has now gone two weeks without holding a health care rally. Since pulling off the full Sunday spin cycle two weekends ago, the health care interviews have ceased.
It's like the Goldilocks approach to journalism: Obama gives a handful interviews and he's too hot! Obama doesn't give interviews and he's too cold!
Oh brother. I don't remember this kind of almost hourly temperature-taking during the Bush years.
From Ted Nugent's October 1 HumanEvents.com column:
Jimmy Carter is either a racist or an idiot or both. Probably both, tinged with a little senility.
Carter recently made the statement that he believes racism is at the core of the angst by those who are protesting Barry O's policies and programs.
Schindler's list was probably racist too. Bad deal, criticizing the naked Emperor like that.
With beliefs and statements such as these, one has to wonder if Jimmy Boy still lusts after other women or if Rosslyn has finally tamed the beast.
When the left-wing moonbats and their toxic, dopey, hippie-inspired ideas are cornered and exposed, they will often revert to hollow and tired charges of racism in hopes of deflecting the blazing light of truth. These are the actions of a racist. What say you, Peanut Boy?
The Democrats know that without the support of black Americans their political party is doomed --a t least until they can addict the immigrants who have arrived over our southern border. Get them dependent on Fedzilla handouts, and the Democrats believe they can own their votes.
Meanwhile, the condition of black America continues to erode because our government keeps it so. How sad. How totally unnecessary.
You don't need to be an historian to see who the real racists are in America. Jimmy Boy, Barry O and others have been destroying black America for decades for their votes. That's the ugliest side of racism.