On January 28, Andrew Breitbart's website BigGovernment.com ran a column from Illinois gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski and hosted a campaign ad. In the column, Andrzejewski also solicits participants for a commemorative Tea Party rally to be held in Chicago. Andrzejewski wrote:
It all started in Chicago. Rick Santelli's call to arms was broadcast from Chicago. The first Tea Party was last year on a cold day in February. I heard you. We need a new generation of leaders that will serve the people, not the political class. My campaign for Governor started because I heard you and I still hear you.
The Tea Party movement is now a year old and what better place to celebrate the movement than in Chicago. We will be at the Dierksen Federal Building plaza at 2:30pm having a rally in honor of the movement and to celebrate all that we've accomplished.
This is what happens when a state is in the grip of one-party rule, run by an ideology that the entire nation is now calling the "Chicago Way."
That's the bad news. Here is the good news. It's a new day in Illinois. All across the state, citizens are building the grassroots army that will bring Illinois back from the brink. They are getting activated, informed, and mobilized. I want to help them by offering them a real choice - not an establishment echo - for Governor. That 'echo' is exacting what I'm running against.
I'm Adam Andrzejewski, and I'm running for Governor of Illinois.
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 of white people." Here are his January 28 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Rush Limbaugh has previously slammed "crazy environmentalist wackos," but he seemed to embrace the practice of recycling on his radio show today. Rush attacked President Obama throughout the show, deriding last night's State of the Union address, and if Limbaugh's smears seemed familiar to regular listeners, they were -- he got plenty of extra mileage out of smears he's already used plenty of times before.
Limbaugh started his show by comparing Obama's "pathetic" State of the Union address to "a speech by Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro." Only two weeks ago, Limbaugh told his listeners, "I think Obama has the same speechwriter as Hugo Chavez." Rush equated the president with Chavez last November, too. When Obama gave a speech on national security in May 2009, Limbaugh asserted that "we got Castro'd." Then in September, while pushing the tired "death panel" falsehood about health care reform, Limbaugh again compared Obama to Castro.
Limbaugh again invoked Chavez and Castro a little later in today's show while attacking Obama as a "delirious" and "petty, little man" and likening the president to a "little kid" who "becomes king due to a premature death." (Don't worry -- Rush assured his listeners that he doesn't like to say these things about the president of the United States.) A week ago, Limbaugh described the president as a "spoiled-rotten little man-child" and suggested he is "delusional." Limbaugh made a habit of referring to Obama as a "boy" and a "man-child" throughout 2009, in addition to calling him a "a small and petty, spoiled little man."
In the second hour of today's show, Limbaugh stated that Obama's promise to uphold laws requiring equal pay for women was actually an effort to pit "groups of Americans against each other" and to expand Obama's "enemies list," which Limbaugh said is "longer than any enemies list I have ever seen." That echo listeners heard was from August, when Rush joined a slew of other media conservatives in asserting that "the White House is gathering an enemies list." Limbaugh and other conservative media figures had similarly accused the White House of compiling an "enemies list" after a March 2009 report that "[t]op Democrats" were "depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party."
One thing that stands out to me is that the circumstances under which Limbaugh was discussing Obama were very different in many of these cases: national security, health care reform, women's rights. But Rush came back to the same attacks time after time. It makes me wonder if Limbaugh would make the same attacks regardless of what Obama says or does.
Responding to President Obama's State of the Union speech, BigGovernment.com editor-in-chief Mike Flynn writes:
Obama seemed to have a gift for perfectly capturing the tone and mood of the public. It may seem a tired cliche now, but his speeches did much to inspire the hope people attached to his candidacy. Even rather vague or pedestrian phrases seemed to soar in his gifted hands. I had accepted it as a given that, if his political fortunes were ever down, Obama would be able to reverse his troubles by pulling just the right speech from his rhetorical bag of tricks.
Obama's State of the Union address last night was not just overly long and dull, it was totally tone-deaf politically. Coming on the heels of a political upset in Massachusetts, with deteriorating poll numbers and anxious members of his own party, Obama badly needed a home-run to change the political dynamics. He struck out.
Flynn has every right to say that he finds the speech "overly long and dull," but he offers no evidence whatsoever to support his claim that it was "totally tone-deaf politically." If the speech was such a political disaster, surely poll data would show that the American people rejected it. It does not.
Of the randomly selected 522 speech viewers questioned by CBS, 83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made. Just 17 percent disapproved - typical of the high support a president generally receives among those who choose to watch the State of the Union. In January 2002 - when George W. Bush gave the State of the Union Address a year into his presidency - 85% of speech watchers approved.
Six in 10 of those asked said they thought Mr. Obama conveyed a clear plan for creating jobs, and seven in 10 said his plans for the economy will help ordinary Americans. Another seven in 10 said President Obama has the same priorities for the country as they have.
The same individuals were interviewed both before and after Wednesday's State of the Union, and after the speech, 70 percent said Mr. Obama shares their priorities for the country, up from 57 percent before the speech.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicated that 48 percent of speech watchers had a very positive reaction, with three in 10 saying they had a somewhat positive response and 21 percent with a negative response.
Two-thirds of speech-watchers who were questioned said the president will succeed in improving the economy, with nearly six in 10 saying he'll succeed in creating jobs.
As Eric Boehlert has noted, the media seem eager to disappear last night's polling results; it doesn't fit the story that they want to tell.
From a January 28 entry on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com:
Watching Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden sitting behind Obama, I was reminded of proud parents watching their child take his first steps. I half expected Nancy to offer him an animal cracker and a sippy cup of apple juice for his efforts.
So, you may be wondering, what was missing?
Gravitas, for one thing. Sure, there was the upward tilt of the head that is part and parcel of every Obama speech. I guess he thinks we enjoy being able to count his nostril hairs. But the entire speech had the tone of a parent lecturing an errant child. All that was missing was a wagging finger and the threat of no dessert for a week if little Billy didn't stop dragging his feet and clean his room.
Apparently, the Media Research Center believes there is no such thing as ideological bias at Fox News -- even when it's irrefutably demonstrated that there is.
A January 27 MRC press release touting the Public Policy Polling survey finding that Fox News had the highest trust rating among TV viewers quoted chief Brent Bozell as saying: 'The proof is in the pudding. Americans want balanced news, not liberal advocacy. Fox offered them 'fair and balanced' journalism, and America has embraced them."
Just one little problem: Fox is not "fair and balanced" -- and the MRC knows it. The day before Bozell's press release was issued, the MRC highlighted a Center for Media and Public Affairs study finding that, while most major news outlets were, on the whole, almost evenly balanced in negative and positive coverage of President Obama's first year, Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier was much more harsh -- only 22 percent positive coverage of Obama and a whopping 78 percent negative.
MRC research director Rich Noyes -- a former CMPA employee who "helped [to] develop the methodology the Center uses for tallying good and bad press for presidents" -- somehow didn't see this as media bias. Rather, Noyes claimed, Fox News was merely providing "historically normal scrutiny" of Obama, because it was "roughly equal to that provided by the old networks in the past."
But the MRC has historically portrayed overly negative coverage of Republican presidents and their causes, such as the Iraq war, as examples of media bias. Now that Fox News has been caught exhibiting the same kind of negativity, using methodology one of its own employees developed, it's suddenly no longer bias but "historically normal scrutiny."
It's no surprise that Bozell would slavishly adhere to right-wing talking points to declare Fox News "fair and balanced" -- never mind that Public Policy Polling made no correlation between trust and balance. As PPP director Tom Jensen pointed out: "A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality."
But it seems the MRC as a whole is just as dedicated to those same talking points, to the extent that it will redefine and whitewash its own methodology and research to avoid having to hang that dreaded B-word on Fox News -- a channel on which MRC employees make regular appearances.
From Sean Hannity's Twitter feed on January 28:
Politico's John Harris mocks President Obama's State of the Union health care comments:
His tepid rallying cry: "As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed."
That just isn't honest. That line -- quite obviously -- was not intended to be a "rallying cry." This is a "rallying cry":
I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)
And this is a "rallying cry":
Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)
You can tell those lines are the rallying cries from the words, but you can also tell from the fact that the rallying cries were met with applause.
But Harris wanted to call Obama's comments "tepid," so he picked a relatively mundane line and falsely claimed it was intended to be the speech's "rallying cry."
That's obviously inane; you can make any speech look tepid if you select its most mundane line and pretend it was mean to be a soaring call to action. Here, let's apply the John Harris technique to another famous speech: Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech was tepid -- just look at its rallying cry: "In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check." Wow, that's a bland rallying cry!
You can use such tactics to belittle a speech, but you shouldn't -- because it's completely dishonest.
This morning, BigGovernment.com contributor Kyle Olson offered a rousing defense of his colleague James O'Keefe, the undercover ACORN video auteur currently under parents' house arrest after getting pinched by the Feds for allegedly trying to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu's phone lines. Olson specifically defended O'Keefe against the "hypocritical" left, writing:
The alleged crimes committed by ACORN employees in the O'Keefe and Giles videos were excused, and even rationalized, by the Left. But they don't apply the same level of patience and understanding for O'Keefe and Company. Even worse, they're jumping to conclusions about their guilt, and the nature of their alleged crime.
OK, so jumping to conclusions about guilt is a bad, bad thing to do. With that in mind, let's take a look back at what BigGovernment.com contributor Kyle Olson wrote in December about the report issued by former Massachusetts attorney general Scott Harshbarger, which found no evidence that the ACORN employees involved in the O'Keefe video sting had acted illegally:
One of Harshbarger's most startling conclusions was that ACORN Housing Corp. employees committed no crimes when they were caught on video repeatedly giving advice to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute. He even suggests that the employees may have been represented in a false light, and were not as guilty as they appeared on video.
Oh my... It seems that Kyle Olson jumped to a conclusion about the guilt of ACORN employees. Not only that, he considered them guilty even though, unlike O'Keefe, they hadn't been charged with an actual crime.
That's not to say that hypocrisy like this from a Breitbart outfit is at all surprising. "Jumping to conclusions" before the facts are in is pretty much their business model.