Behold the wonder of Politico. This beaut comes courtesy of Kenneth Vogel:
Roman Polanski backers Gave $34K To Barack Obama, DNC
Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.
BTW, it turns out that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is responsible for the biggest chunk of that $34,000. And oh yeah, Weinstein didn't directly give the Obama campaign one dime last year. So if you're keeping score at home and the "Barack Obama" reference caught your attention in the headline, in truth, Politico is suggesting that Polanski "backers" gave Obama $15,000 last year.
And Obama's campaign raised how much money for its White House run? Approximately $750 million. So, although Politico doesn't bother to spell it out, it's suggesting that Polanski "backers" were responsible for less than .002% of the Obama campaign's White House run.
And any of this is news because...why? Is Politico suggesting Obama and Democrats are somehow tied to the private causes of their donors? That Obama and Democrats need to return the money? That they're supporting Polanski? Is Politico suggesting anything of substance?
As a moderator of discussion on the blog www.exposeobama.com, Floyd has observed the discussion of impeachment is mushrooming amongst conservative activists.
Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn't up to the job. Obama deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis, and he was replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special recall election Oct. 7, 2003, in California.
America is a monument to the triumph of freedom. When Barack Obama thinks about freedom, he sees a world in which some people, due to personal initiative and good fortune, will do better than others. In that regard, he is right. But Barack Obama sees that as unfair. Where you see freedom, liberty and the opportunity for any American to be all that he or she can be, Obama sees greed and bigotry.
Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity." This worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man, and a threat to your personal liberty.
Worldview explains why he has gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal.
Worldview explains why Obama intends to take away your freedom to choose your own doctor and your own treatment. Wherever government controls health care, bureaucrats decide who gets treatments, transplants, dialysis and costly medication.
The groundswell of calls for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is growing.
In the column, WND promoted its "Exclusive!" "IMPEACH Obama Magnetic Bumper Sticker" with the promotional text, "Let the world know your solution to tyranny and socialism in America with the magnetic bumper sticker: 'IMPEACH OBAMA!'"
WND also has an online poll asking readers, "FIRED WITH ENTHUSIASM: What do you think of the call to impeach President Obama?" From the poll's top 5 responses:
In a column published at Townhall and the Media Research Center's CNSNews.com, director of cultural affairs for the right-wing Liberty Counsel (and anti-gay activist) Matt Barber smears the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, claiming that GLSEN members "promote sexual anarchy and tacitly work to normalize the criminal practice of pederasty." Barber goes on to assert: "GLSEN's primary purpose is to push dangerous and even deadly homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors in our government schools on children as young as five."
Barber also cites an outdated study to further attack gays:
Multiple studies have established, for instance, that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.
One such study -- conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada -- was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.
While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.
Barber doesn't mention that this study is irrelevant to gay behavior today. The study examined data "obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992," and the life expectancy differential was specifically attributed to deaths "due to HIV/AIDS." But the first antiretroviral drug to treat HIV was not introduced until 1987 and was only partly effective and, thus, arguably had no significant effect on mortality rates during the time period of the study. It was not until the mid-1990s -- well outside the window of the study -- that more effective treatments became available.
Claiming that mortality rates among gays 20 years ago, when there were no effective HIV drugs, are reflective of gay behavior today is misleading and deceptive. But Barber seems to hate gays more than he respects the truth.
Dole's speech, as is usually the case, wandered over various subjects -- presidential humor, his own career, Social Security reform, and Monica Lewinski, who was Dole's neighbor for a time in the Watergate complex in the 1990s.
"If I'd had little wiretap there, I could've been president," Dole said, adding: "I never had..... a conversation with that lady."
Now, here's what's interesting about that: Bob Dole knows that during the 1996 campaign, the Washington Post spiked an article about Bob Dole having an affair. And shortly after the Post spiked that article -- an article Dole aides considered a "mortal threat" to his campaign -- Bob Dole was running around the country, accusing the media of being biased against him and in favor of Clinton.
Given that Dole knew the Post had just spiked a story about his own affair, it's hard to believe he actually thought the media was biased against him. He was just doing what conservatives do: Reflexively and dishonestly attack the media.
The fact that Dole now says that he'd have won in 1996 if he had evidence of Clinton's affair further illustrates how insincere his criticism of the media was. After all, you have to be pretty sure the media is on your side to think that if only you had evidence of your opponent's affair, you'd have won -- all while knowing that the media covered up your own affair.
Goldberg's in classic apologist mode today in USA Today, as he waves away anyone on the left or right who has a problem with Beck. Goldberg's exercise is particular dishonest because Goldberg never--ever!--spells out what Beck has done and said this year that would upset both liberals and serious conservatives.
That's the golden rule of apologists: never let readers know why your guy is under attack. And Goldberg knows his role well. Rather than directly quote a single controversial thing Beck has said this year, or explain why conservative David Brooks labeled Beck a "loon" this weekend, Goldberg simply paints Beck as a "goofy" "populist." (How dumb does Goldberg think readers are? Very, very dumb.)
Goldberg is especially sure to stay away from the "racist" controversy. You remember, when Beck made national headlines and kicked off a advertising boycott that, to date, has cost his show nearly 80 advertisers, when he called Obama a "racist" who had a hatred of white people and white culture?
If you gonna talk about Beck, that's pretty much the defining even of 2009 for him. But in Goldberg's loving hands, the "racist" slur never took place, which means Goldberg doesn't have to defend it. Again. You'll recall, when Beck first called out the President of the United States as a "racist," Goldberg rushed to Beck's side and insisted the hate host had nothing to apologize for. Goldberg claimed that if Beck thought it was true that Obama hated white people, than he ought to say it on national TV.
That's the intellectual level Goldberg plays on. I guess that's why he's such a Glenn Beck fan.
UPDATED: No joke, Goldberg argues that Beck is just like Jon Stewart. Ugh, Jonah, we get it, you want to be invited back on Glenn's show. Can you stop with the fawning already?
Remember when right-wingers like Glenn Beck went nuts about Barack Obama telling schoolchildren to work hard and get an education, claiming he was "indoctrinating" them and suggesting he was trying to create a modern-day Hitler Youth? Remember how that criticism came despite the fact that Republican presidents like George H.W. Bush spoke to schoolchildren?
Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher thinks that's an example of hypocrisy by Democrats:
Downtown DC: I'm appalled at the reports of some Republicans cheering that "Obama lost" when Chicago wasn't chosen by the IOC. I'm tempted to ask, "Why do you hate America?" Can you put this incident in perspective -- have Democrats been this petty and vindictive; is this part of a coarsening of public life lately?
Michael A. Fletcher: Hard to compare the level of pettiness, but I remember learning during the flap over President Obama's address to school children that Democrats in Congress had put President George H.W. Bush through the ringer for making a similar address to students. So it goes both ways. I think that both sides in the political debate look for every opportunity to criticize the other side, and that's what you saw with Obama's Olympic pitch. I can imagine that if he decided not to go to Copenhagen and Chicago had lost out, he'd be criticized for that. As you point out, that is the tone of our politics these days.
In 1991, Democrats criticized President George H. W. Bush for using taxpayer money to produce a speech to schoolchildren, arguing that it was an improper use of public funds for political purposes. Asked whether the footage would make a good campaign commercial, White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater acknowledged "We certainly would use any tape of the president, doing anything, anywhere in the world at any time if it was to his political benefit," lending some support to the Democrats' claims.
In 2009, Conservatives attacked Barack Obama for speaking to schoolchildren, claiming he was "indoctrinating" them and making comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Those two criticisms are not remotely similar. I happen to think the criticism from Democrats in 1999 was petty (and the GAO ultimately concluded the expenditure was not inappropriate.) But it was nothing like the vile and disgusting comments from Glenn Beck and his allies a few weeks ago. It's like comparing apples and giraffes.
To look at those two events and conclude, as Michael Fletcher does, that they are comparable -- and to suggest it is the Democrats who are hypocritical and insincere in their actions -- is bizarre and indefensible.
On October 7, The Politico published an "Ideas" piece by Rep. John Linder (R-GA) that compared President Obama's administration to "Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy." From Linder's Politico piece:
Progressivism and its progeny all believed in the fairness and wisdom of decisions made by the state - often at the expense of the individual, who, it was believed, made selfish decisions. All demanded that the state have an increased role in raising children. Adolf Hitler scoffed at those who remained opposed to him, saying he already had control of their children.
All believed in the minimum wage, state control of private property for the public good, unionization and environmentalism. And they believed in eugenics to purify the gene pool.
It is now fair to wonder whether we are returning to a belief that only a powerful central government can fix all of our problems. Victor Davis Hanson wrote in the National Review that President Barack Obama is governing as though the United States were a university and he its president. Governing by czars fits that example. A diversity czar, environment czar, pay czar, science czar, manufacturing czar and, of course, health czar could deal with the "whole" of an issue rather than looking at it piece by piece. This is not unlike the women's studies, black studies, diversity studies, environmental studies and other obsequious studies in most academic settings.
And with the Obama administration, just as in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and Wilson's America, the leaders of major corporations are falling in line. Whether it is climate change, executive pay, automobile manufacturing or bank buying, CEOs step right up and wait for the tax benefits to surely follow their pandering. And the CEOs stood mute while bondholders saw their investments given to the unions.
The principal sin in politics is overreaching. Americans have in the past repeatedly voted for freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state. It will happen again.
Can Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator count? It's a serious inquiry. Because this week he seems incapable of counting past 15.
Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so quiet about Kevin Jennings? Jennings is in the news because he is the Obama administration's Safe Schools czar, in bureaucratese the assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools inside the Department of Education. And because he has now admitted that when, as a teacher, he was sought out by a 15-year-old boy asking for advice about an affair with an older adult male, Jennings suggested wearing a condom.
The boy was not 15 years old. Period. He was 16, which was the legal age of consent in Massachusetts, where the incident took place. I noted, quite clearly, that everybody who follows the story now knows the boy was 16, not 15. Yet days later, fact-free zones of the GOP Noise Machine, including The American Spectator, continue to cling to the age of 15 because it allows them to float even more false claims that Jennings condoned statutory rape of a student.
Days after the boy himself confirmed he was 16 years old at the time of the incident, the American Spectator reported he was 15. And when called on it, refused to correct the purposeful error. What other proof do you need that the fringe rag doesn't care about even brushing up against the truth now and then?
Now in his response, Lord's howling that--a-ha!--at the time Jennings thought the boy was 15, so that's why he used that age in his post. Of course, that's not what Lord originally wrote. He didn't report that Jennings "was sought out by a boy who he thought was 15 years old asking for advice." Lord wrote that the boy was 15. False, and everybody knows it. He was 16.
Again, what further proof do you need that Lord and his fellow loons are trapped in their own hermetically-sealed world when they refuse to acknowledge even the simplest facts, like somebody's age. The boy in the Jennings story confirmed he was 16 years, but the American Spectator still writes up a story announcing, as fact, that he was 15.
Like I said in the original post, we're through the looking glass with this stuff.
Glenn Greenwald recently provided the following analysis of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
Increasingly, there is great difficulty in understanding not only Beck's political orientation but, even more so, the movement that has sprung up around him... Some of this confusion is attributable to the fact that Beck himself doesn't really appear to have any actual, identifiable political beliefs; he just mutates into whatever is likely to draw the most attention for himself and whatever satisfies his emotional cravings of the moment.
Does Beck have any core beliefs? It's hard to tell -- hard to know if even he really knows the answer. Beck has described himself as a rodeo clown, which would suggest that he's just in it for the laughs. But he has also disagreed with that depiction. "I've joked that I'm a rodeo clown," he said on October 5. "But you know what? I take that back. I no longer am a rodeo clown. I am a dad, and quite frankly, I'm a little pissed off right now."
This is the kind of cognitive dissonance that routinely defines Beck's program. It isn't hard to find numerous examples of his Fox News show broadcasting completely antithetical messages, sometimes on the same day, sometimes even within the same segment. It might be because he truly doesn't possess any core principles, or because he is a consistently sloppy thinker. But either way, you have to wonder how often Beck leaves his audience unmoored and not knowing what to think anymore -- a state which might in turn make them all the more susceptible to the "answers" he then pretends to provide.
Consider the following examples from recent Beck programming:
This president I think has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don't know what it is.
Just over a minute later, after he was reminded that many of Obama's top officials are white, Beck completely reversed himself:
I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people; I'm saying he has a problem.
And then he reversed himself again: "This guy is, I believe, a racist." It's hard to think of a better example of how willing Beck is to change his tune at a moment's notice, even after making the most serious of claims.
On September 29, Beck seemed to suggest that accumulating material possessions was irrelevant to him:
Do you feel like I do? I think you do. We would all absolutely learn to do with less, learn to do with nothing, quite frankly, sew our own clothes, you know, never get any new clothes, just can our own food, work out in the yard, take a bus to work if we needed to, just to have our kids to have the opportunity at the freedom to succeed and fail that this country has always offered its citizens.
However, he has also described himself as an unapologetic capitalist who enjoys making money. Beck on September 1 [emphasis added]:
The media will say, "Oh, he's just a clown." Well, you know what? I am clown. I am a guy who just -- I just want to have laughs and fun. I'm a capitalist. I want to make money. I want to do all that stuff.
And on August 24 [again, emphasis added]:
You see, ask yourself this first question: what do I have to gain if I'm right? If I am right, America transforms into a place where guys like me don't make any money. If I am wrong -- well, then I would be wildly discredited, now, wouldn't I? What could possibly -- what would be my motivation other than I believe these questions must be asked.
For what it's worth, Beck's radio show alone has guaranteed that he has become a very rich man, making his professed disinterest in possessions all the less believable.
On September 28, Beck hosted a studio audience composed of moms. He also welcomed Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist who has repeatedly been a guest on his show. During a discussion of their hopes and fears concerning the future, Ablow engaged in the following exchange with several audience members [emphasis added]:
ABLOW: And the silence was deafening when these mothers grow silent. When the question is asked by Frank, how many of you feel that things will be better for your kids -- think about the tragic proportions of what just happened. They don't feel that they can overcome these forces. That's why neighborhood and community is so important, because you can't do it alone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
ABLOW: You need to do it in concert -
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
ABLOW: - with other mothers and other people who believe what you do, because it's so lonely to try to turn back the tide of these mammoth forces alone. It's very difficult. It takes a village, doesn't it?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, it does!
Now compare this "it takes a village" message to what Ablow said later in the same program:
ABLOW: Most people come to me are coming because they don't know their personal histories. And it's a very dangerous thing to deprive someone of history and spirituality.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
ABLOW: Because what do those things do? They make you autonomous. They give you a sense of self and a sense of feeling confident about the future to make your own decisions.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
ABLOW: Take that away from people and what do you get? You get the anxious people coming to my practice. They feel unnerved. Then they need support, right, temporarily from me, but I intend to restore them to autonomy. I'm not sure the government understands the extent to which people can made -- be made dependent. It may be their intention.
There is no reason to believe that one can't simultaneously possess a strong sense of self and a strong sense of community, or that someone can't achieve great things due to their own initiative while also receiving assistance from the society in which they live. These are principals that progressives inherently understand. But do Ablow and Beck believe such things? On the program referenced above, they made no attempt to reconcile Ablow's disparate statements, which were instead presented in a way that suggesting that being a robust individual and belonging to a broader society are mutually exclusive.
Beck has identified Obama's supposed commitment to "reparations" as being at the heart of his presidency, although the general specter of wealth redistribution is what he seems even more fixated on. On his Fox News show, he routinely plays a clip from a 2001 interview Obama did with WBEZ in Chicago, during which the then-law professor stated the following (emphasis added):
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and, sort of, more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society. One of the -- I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
Beck has highlighted the remarks as central to Obama's entire world view. "If you want to understand the big picture in the puzzle that we're trying to put together," he said on October 5, "this is the one thing Obama has said that you must understand above everything else."
Beck believes redistribution schemes are fundamentally un-American, but his explanations of this charge are often so vague and contradictory that they are virtually meaningless. During the same October 5 broadcast cited above, Beck rebutted the idea that he was a cynic in the following way (emphasis added):
Lindsey Graham keeps calling me a cynic. I am not a cynic. I believe in the American people. I believe, look -- my dad was a baker. His dad was a baker. His dad was a baker.
I'm the first guy to ever go to college in my family, and you know what? I went for about 60, 70 days, that's it. You know why? I couldn't afford it.
I believe in the American Dream. We can make it as long as we're being honest with each other, and we help each other out.
Despite this tale -- one which would suggest that Beck himself would have stayed in college had he only had the money to do so -- he continued on with a general denunciation of any form of "social justice" [emphasis added]:
This is Barack Obama in 2001. 2001 -- look at what he said -- he talked about social justice. Social justice is taking money from one group and giving it to another. He talked about economic justice, the same thing. He talked about the political and community organizing, and the events in the organizing on the ground that cobble together the coalitions of power that lead to redistributive change...He believes when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. That's Marxism!...Spreading the wealth around. Well, that's not a capitalist idea.
What are we to conclude? That Beck is happy that he couldn't afford college? That the poverty he experienced and which limited his choices and options in life was patriotic - was American? Would he have us believe that we should never provide scholarships to aspiring students, that affordable, in-state tuitions paid for by tax revenue is just a Marxist plot to "spread the wealth around"? Or does Beck want us to be "honest with each other" and "help each other out"?
On September 24, Beck told his audience to trust their instincts when thinking about the government. "You know, there is a great book that I read years ago," he said. "It's called The Gift of Fear." Rather than portraying fear as the last thing people should operate off of when making political decisions, Beck embraced it, illustrating his point using a parable implying that we should aspire to be more like dogs [emphasis added]:
The first chapter is how we're all given the gift of fear. And they talk about how it's important not to dismiss that fear. And they talk about dogs and how everybody - you know, there is an incident and somebody, you know - some neighbors rob them and whatever. And the person always says, "You know what, my dog - I should have been listening to my dog, you know. He was yip, yip, yip and barking every time he came over. He just hated it."
Like the dog has some super extra sense that you don't have. You know what it is? It is not that the dog has some special power of seeing bad guys - I swear to you. My dog - I should have listened to my dog.
No, you shouldn't have listened to your dog. You should have listened to your gut. Your dog is missing something that you have, and that the second guess, "No, no, he can't be a bad guy. No, that can't be. No, that's not -"
Listen to your gut. It was a gift, the gift of fear. Right now, your dog would be watching that video going, "Yip, yip, yip!" I'm telling you, listen to the gift of fear. It's there for a reason.
Later on in the program, Beck welcomed Dr. Ablow, who during a discussion of the 9/12 protest, offered a completely contradictory diagnosis (emphasis added):
ABLOW: What is it doing after all? You are tapping emotion, which is what you have been saying - tapping emotion at the expense of analysis. Where are the facts? Let's rally people with the truth.
So what should we listen to? Our head or our gut? And which one does the 9/12 Project appeal to? Apparently, Beck doesn't know.
Beck has attempted to insulate himself from the charge that the right-wing media is encouraging violence, and has often spoken out against violent conduct. And yet, he has at times delivered the exact opposite message. In early August, just three days after imploring his viewers "to be respectful, polite, forceful, and peaceful" at town hall meetings with their Representatives, Beck joked about poisoning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. What message were his viewers supposed to take away from the segment, besides the idea that that killing members of Congress is funny?
Three days later, on August 9, Beck engaged in one of his most despicable acts, portraying the president as a homicidal arsonist. After dismissing Obama's plans for immigration reform, Beck said the following:
I don't know about you, but when I saw that story last night, I did this -- you got to be kidding me! I mean, let me -- let me just ask you a question. Maybe I'm alone, but I think it would be just faster if they just shot me in the head. You know what I mean? How much more can -- how much more can he disenfranchise all of us?
He then pretended to pour gasoline on a guest who represented the American people. "President Obama," he yelled, "why don't you just set us on fire?" Is this the work of a host who honestly hopes his audience will remain peaceful and civil?
None of this should surprise us. Beck, after all, now begins every single one of his Fox News broadcasts with a contradiction. "If you believe this country is great," he says, before trotting out a manufactured ill that is theoretically undermining America, "then stand up! Come on -- follow me."
Take action! he is saying -- by doing exactly what I tell you to do. What commonly follows is a mish-mash of contradictory claims, half-baked notions, and flat-out distortions that are so glaring and egregious that they could only be the product of either a profound disdain for serious thought or a deliberate strategy aimed at promoting confusion. Either way, Beck is doing his audience, and the nation, a grave disservice.
For some reason, National Review seems to be taken seriously by the media elite, as though they were thoughtful, intellectually honest conservatives. And yet they've been peddling the conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers actually wrote Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father for more than a year.
This latest round of wishful thinking was set off by Ayers' alleged "admission" that he wrote the book -- an admission that came out of the blue while talking to a conservative blogger in line at Starbucks. If it sounds far-fetched to you that Ayers would, after all this time, blurt out a confession while standing in line for an iced latte, that's probably because you're smarter than Jonah Goldberg.
As Dave Weigel notes, there's a perfectly obvious explanation for Ayers' comment (if you assume he actually said what this blogger claims he said):
A reasonable explanation for this, if we take the heretofore-obscure blogger at her word for what Ayers said: Ayers was messing around with a conservative movement that's been after him for a decade, putting them back on the trail of a fruitless conspiracy theory.
Even AllahPundit of the right-wing web site Hot Air sees this for the nonsense that it is:
What's more amusing? The fact that he'd tease a conservative by baiting her about the right's Cashill/Andersen-fueled authorship suspicions, or the fact that the Examiner seems to think he was making an earnest, honest-to-goodness confession?
Note that this wasn't even in response to a question. He simply blurted it out as soon as the interviewer identified herself as conservative.
Still: I bet this latest, lamest conspiracy theory ends up on FOX News. The only question is whether Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity gets to it first. My money's on Hannity; he's feeling the pressure.