From an August 14 post by Washington Post Co. blogger Greg Sargent:
If you're a top prospective GOP Senate candidate who's introducing herself to voters in preparation for a nationally watched Senate race, it's probably not great form to spend any time hangin' with the anchor-woman who described Obama and Michelle's fist bump as a "terrorist fist jab."
That, at any rate, is what national Dems are charging, now that Kelly Ayotte, the national GOP's top choice for Senate in New Hampshire, is set to speak at a local event being keynoted by E.D. Hill, the former Fox anchor who sparked a big controversy when she offered up the aformentioned "terrorist fist jab" line.
Ayotte is set to attend the Nashua Area Republican City Committee's annual "Steakout" fundraiser on September 12th with keynote speaker Hill, according to the local party's calendar.
Sayeth DSCC spokesperson Eric Schultz: "With Kelly Ayotte surrounding herself with Washington insiders, lobbyists, and now this - it raises a lot of questions about what she stands for and what she's all about." Ayotte's campaign didn't immediately return a request for comment.
In 2003, Hill told USA Today that she's a "primary-voting Democrat." Hill later said on Bill O'Reilly's now-departed radio show in October 2008 that she had a "transformation" and changed her affiliation to Republican.
From the Fox Nation, accessed on August 14:
Just out of curiosity, are we going to be reading these conservatives-still-trail-liberals-online articles in 2012? 2015? 2020? It's just astonishing to me that nearly seven years (which is what, 70 years in Internet time?), the conservative blogosphere still badly trails the left online, and even more incredibly, it appears to be making no serious gains.
How is it that a major major political movement in this country has managed to be caught so off-guard for so long about a media revolution that everyone else seems to have picked up by now?
Here's my take from Bloggers On The Bus:
In truth, the two blogospheres had distinctly different DNA's because they were born into different political environments. In the late 1990's and early 2000's conservatives had already established their own alternative, movement-based media (aka the Republican Noise Machine.) Built around talk radio, Fox News and partisan print outlets, they were part of a political movement first, and part of the media landscape second. Meaning, they had a clear allegiance to the GOP and they eagerly embraced propaganda; endlessly repeating ideas, phrases, and images.
So when the Internet began to emerge as a political force at the turn of the decade, it wasn't as if a vacuum existed among conservatives in terms of political discourse. They already had an abundance of established outlets where their voices could be heard and promoted. That's one reason they were slower to embrace the Internet.
Consequently, when the conservative blogosphere matured, it did so within the framework of the established, GOP-friendly alternative media system. Right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt simply joined in the same conversations that were already being heard on talk radio, and on Fox News and in the pages of the Weekly Standard. Bloggers brought another microphone to an already crowded GOP media table and became an appendage of talk radio. They represented another lineup of pundits and commentators. They embraced the old fashion model of experts dispensing wisdom to their loyal readers.
For years, many of the major conservative blogs didn't even allow readers to post comments, which meant the conversation flowed from the blogger (i.e. from the pundit) to the reader. The interaction remained limited, as was the sense of shared community. Consequently, because lots of prominent conservative bloggers showed no interest in leading a larger movement that meant comparatively little organizing, fundraising or policy initiatives sprang from the conservative blogs. After all, that's what well-funded conservative think tanks were for.
Of course, there's another reason the Rightroots movement remains stagnant: It's led by dopes.
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)