We wondered. The link goes to a The Hill article about Reid talking about a rise in domestic abuse by men because of joblessness.
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh took a shot at Bill O'Reilly, mocking O'Reilly for his supposed goal of "giv[ing] socialism a fair shake" and for his criticism of those who "bash Obama." Today, Limbaugh got his response - O'Reilly devoted much of his program to the question of whether or not President Obama is a socialist.
O'Reilly defended himself by stating that "from the beginning, the Factor has criticized Mr. Obama for his socialist tenets, primarily that of income redistribution." In a true Fox News fair-and-balanced moment, O'Reilly subsequently ran a graphic that stated: "Is President Obama a socialist? I say no. Others say yes."
Bill-O went on to ask Newt Gingrich, Brit Hume, and Bernie Goldberg in separate segments whether they think Obama is a socialist.
With two minutes of criticism, Limbaugh was able to direct a large portion of O'Reilly's show. With results like that, I think we can expect this conflict-of-the-egos to continue.
This morning, Eric Boehlert noted that Bill Bennett had called out Glenn Beck - but not for how, as Eric put it, Beck has "spread his crazy, tinfoil hat, anti-government conspiracies, and denigrated the President of the United States as a racist, communist, socialist, Nazi dictator." No, Bennett's issue with Beck is that his CPAC speech was insufficiently partisan.
Right-wing radio host Mark Levin is now joining in, taking to his Facebook page to laud Bennett's piece and comment:
I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It's incoherent. One day it's populist, the next it's libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it's conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. This is as old as Plato and Aristotle. Why would conservatives choose to surrender the political battlefield to our adversaries -- who are trashing this society --when we must retake it in order to preserve our society? Philosophy, politics, culture, family, etc., are all of one. Edmund Burke, among others, wrote about it extensively, and far better that I possibly can. But all elements of the civil society require our defense. Besides, why preach such a strategy when conservatism is on the rise and the GOP is acting more responsibly?
Moreover, when he does discuss politics, which, ironically, is often, how can he claim today that there is no difference between the two parties when, but for the Republicans in Congress, government-run health care, cap-and-trade, card check, and a long list of other disastrous policies would already be law? The GOP is becoming more conservative thanks to the grass-roots movement and a political uprising across the country, which has even reached into New Jersey and Massachusetts. Why keep pretending otherwise? My only conclusion is that he is promoting a third party or some third way, which is counter-productive to defeating Obama and the Democrat Congress. These are perilous times and this kind of an approach will keep the statists in power for decades.
It's interesting to see where these right-wing talkers are drawing the line. Crazed conspiracies? No problem! But criticize Republicans, and you are "counter-productive" and helping the "statists."
From the February 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
At least 80 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 for white people." Here are his February 22 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
*Allergan, Inc was previously erroneously identified as a parent company of Hydroxatone, LLC. Media Matters regrets the error.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank defends Marco Rubio's CPAC teleprompter joke:
The first three CPAC speakers made a variation of the teleprompter joke. I think in fairness to Rubio he was reading his speech (carefully) from paper, but the prompters were definitely up and he was looking back and forth mechanically, so it gave the appearance that he was using the hated technology. [Emphasis added]
That's totally irrelevant. The criticism of Obama for using a teleprompter isn't some luddite fear of The Machines; it's that he isn't delivering speeches from memory. Thus if someone poking fun at Obama for relying on a teleprompter is, himself, reading his speech from a paper copy, that's just as hypocritical as it would be if he was reading from a teleprompter.
Later in his online Q&A, Milbank -- perhaps best known for calling Hillary Clinton a "bitch" -- made what appears to be a joke about Roseanne Barr being fat:
Q. Bill Maher's show Dana, why aren't you on Bill Maher's show? I defy anyone to do snark better than you.
A. Dana Milbank writes: I did do his show once but I was eaten by my fellow panelist Roseanne Barr.
This weekend at CPAC, a riled-up Andrew Breitbart told Mediaite's Tommy Christopher: "The worst thing you can do right now in the United States, in politically correct America, is to accuse somebody of being a racism [sic] through slurs and innuendo without evidence."
Breitbart likes to use this refrain, as he did last year on Real Time with Bill Maher, when he defended Rush Limbaugh from such charges:
MAHER: "Oklahoma is out of ammo because they're afraid that Obama and his Negro army are going to come and get you."
BREITBART: "Who's afraid? Where is this racism coming from?"
MAHER: "The racism is coming from Rush Limbaugh. But it's taking root in Oklahoma."
BREITBART: "Whoa, whoa. I find that offensive because there's nothing in this country that's a worse accusation. It's where, in America, if you accuse somebody of racism, that person has to disprove that. It's completely un-American to call him racism [sic]. You tell me what he has done that is racist. The man has been on the air for 21 years, 15 hours a week. And if you had..."
Of course, Limbaugh's history of racially-charged comments has been well documented by Media Matters. From his numerous comments about Donovan McNabb to his repeated use of the "Barack the Magic Negro" song to his most recent comments -- arguably his most disturbing yet -- in which he said he said, "Yes, I spoke a little Negro dialect there. I can do that when I want to."
But where was Breitbart when Limbaugh actually called Salon editor-in-chief "the real racist" with a "race-based materialistic -- or maternalistic attitude toward black people"?
How about when Sean Hannity asked: "Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?"
And where was Breitbart when CPAC keynote speaker Glenn Beck repeatedly called Sonia Sotomayor a "racist"? Or when he called the president a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture"?
Oh yeah, he was promoting Beck's defense of them.
Breitbart -- like Beck and Jonah Goldberg -- loves to portray the conservatives as victims of baseless charges of "racism," but when conservatives levy such charges, Breitbart is uncharacteristically quiet.
Almost three months to the day since Fox News instituted its "zero tolerance for on-screen errors" policy, the following on-screen graphic was displayed during the February 22 edition of America's Newsroom: