Yesterday, we highlighted a Newsmax column by John L. Perry essentially advocating a military coup to resolve the "Obama problem" (while, of course, claiming he was advocating no such thing). It's just the latest example of extreme right-wing rhetoric directed at President Obama.
Now, it appears that Newsmax has removed the column from its website; the link to it defaults to Perry's main column page. Fortunately, we made a copy.
As of this writing, Newsmax has posted no explanation or apology on its website -- arguably par for the course for Newsmax when it gets caught screwing up. But Media Matters has received the following statement from a Newsmax spokesperson:
In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military. He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.
After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.
Interesting that Newsmax makes a point of highlighting that Perry worked in the Carter administration, as if it somehow proves he's not really a right-wing nut. And its dismissal of Perry as nothing more than an "unpaid blogger" is a tad disingenous since Perry has been writing for Newsmax since 1999 and Perry's Newsmax bio touts how he "contributes a regular column to NewsMax.com."
Fox Nation has a thought-provoking question for their readers:
That is a good question. I've got a quick follow-up question of my own: Does Fox Nation not understand the difference between someone who writes a program and someone who uses it, or are they just making things up again?
Fox Nation is clearly implying that an Obama supporter authored this poll. But, as they are wont to do, they helpfully link to an article that completely undercuts that suggestion:
Jesse Farmer, of Bumbalabs in Palo Alto, Calif., has given permission for Facebook to reveal that he was the developer, but, significantly, not the author behind the poll that nauseated many Monday.
Whoops. The article goes on to point out that Farmer is an Obama supporter. However, as Farmer further explained in a diary posted on Daily Kos yesterday, he had nothing to do with authoring the poll itself and removed it as soon as it was brought to his attention:
Polls are created by other Facebook users, not me, anyone affiliated with me, or Facebook.
Thousands of polls are created daily, sometimes as many as 10,000. Each poll has as many as 2MM votes and 200k comments. Of those thousands of polls, most are gibberish and a few are offensive, libelous, or otherwise beyond the pale.
The poll was created Sunday evening and I deleted it first thing Monday morning.
Just to run through this again quickly: Jesse Farmer develops an application that allows Facebook users to create their own polls. The application becomes very popular, leading to thousands of polls created daily. Someone uses the application to create an incendiary, outrageous poll about President Obama. Fox Nation blames Jesse Farmer for posting the poll.
If Fox Nation is suggesting Farmer is at fault because he should have checked each of the several thousand polls first, I would just like to point out that Fox Nation would have had to read only the one article they link to in order to realize it disproves their headline.
I guess "Why Would An Obama Supporter Develop A Program That Someone Could Eventually Use To Post A Crazy Poll About Obama?" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
From The Hill:
A cycle after the Democrats went all out to stretch the map to new lengths, Republicans are doing their best imitation. The GOP is attempting to go after a number of seats it hasn't pursued in decades, along with others that have gone by the wayside in recent cycles.
The hyper-aggressive strategy stems from "an environment shift" politically. The Hill stresses that, "the magnitude of the change in the environment" means the GOP is now landing better candidate. The "environment" is never defined, but readers can assume it's referring to a downturn for Democrats.
But as John Amato at Crooks & Liars recently noted, while the press seems completely tuned into polling data that might reflect poorly on Obama and Democrats, the same press seems utterly disinterested in GOP polling results that are worse.
Wrote Amato [emphasis added]:
Mitch McConnell is polling at an 18% approval rating. That's eighteen percent. John Boehner is polling at 12% approval rating. Just think about that one. And it doesn't take much to make him cry. Mitch and Boehner are viewed less favorably than Dick Cheney was during the dark days of the Bush administration. Why don't we hear about that on teevee? The overall approval ratings of Congressional Republicans is 17% as a party!
I have no doubt the RNC is expanding its list of targeted Democrats. But in reporting the strategy, news outlets such as The Hill ought to acknowledge that the GOP itself faces a very difficult "environment."
Last time I checked in with the fringe pub's Matthew Vadum I was having trouble detecting anything even remotely coherent from his supposed blockbuster ("Special Report") about how Obama was going to desecrate the memory of 9/11, or something. It was lots of ranting about how Obama this year was going "to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche." (How'd that scoop pan out, Matthew?)
Vadum is back for another tumble through the looking glass. And after trying my best, and re-reading his efforts many times, I'm still not entirely sure what he's talking about. And a a journalist, I'm not sure that's the take-away you want to constantly leave readers. Just sayin.'
But, as best I can tell, Vadum on Tuesday claimed the White House's Patrick Gaspard used to work for ACORN. Why this matters, Vadum never really spells out. (i.e. He never claims any wrongdoing on Gaspard's part.) Readers are simply supposed to react in shock and anger, I guess, because ACORN's a massive criminal enterprise? Right on cue, the right-wing blogosphere reacted in horror. The ACORN scoop was huge news. Of course, it turns it wasn't true. (Pretty much by definition these days, a right-wing blog scoop has be false. That's just the way the game is played.)
So, with his scoop in shambles, what does Vadum do? Same thing he did in September when his Obama-9/11 story was in shambles. He doubles down with more impossible-to-follow fantasy, borderline sci-fi writing. This time, the gist is that ACORN to the Average Joe is such a mysterious and complex and un-knowing entity, that only Vadum, with his year's worth of dedicated ACORN 'reporting,' can really determine the facts. (Mere mortals like Smith aren't up to the task.) Only Vadum, using some sort of special right-wing, X-ray vision glasses, is able to tell the truth about ACORN. Only Vadum can properly connect the dots. And oh yeah, he has secret evidence that's he's not willing to disclose.
Question: Does Vadum still have secret evidence to prove how Obama was going to "erase the meaning" of Sept. 11? Just curious.
More than 60 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 September 29 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From John L. Perry's September 29 Newsmax column:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
From Rathke's September 29 post to his personal blog:
My "friends" on the right seem to be using me as a source for an attack at yet another new target: Patrick Gaspard, political director at the White House.
I have huge admiration for Patrick and have enjoyed my dealings with him over the years. In almost 1400 blogs I've done, sometimes I don't get it right, call it a senior moment or whatever it might be, but reading the blogsphere with me as a source took me back searching for whether or not I could be causing a problem here inadvertently. Patrick was never on the staff of ACORN. I double checked with people I still know there, and it appears that I dropped a stitch there. Hopefully my misstatement won't lead to the White House throwing him in front of the bus in this rush to neo-McCarthyism that has become so prominent. In this case, my memory tricked me. I'm glad to carry the weight and simply say I made a mistake, and damned if I'm not sorry and hope no damage is done to a good man doing a hard job.
See, this is what happens when radical, right-wing partisan try to practice journalism. More times than not, they end up making fools of themselves. Because they have no idea how journalism works, nor do they care. And sure enough, Breitbart.tv became a laughing stock today when, driven by its blind hatred of Obama, the site claimed to have uncovered a video of community organizers praying to Obama.
Obedient right-wing bloggers then piled on, openly mocking a group of mostly African-Americans as they gathered in prayer. That's right, today's GOP Noise Machine, when not attacking school kids, sets aside time to ridicule people in prayer. (One right-wing site accused the organizers of "blasphemy.")
The punch line came when some sane people outside of Breitbart's hate circle actually watched the video and realized that the community organizers who gathered (nine months ago, BTW), weren't saying "Obama," but were saying "Oh God," which is typical when people are in prayer. In other words, Breitbart posted a video mocking a group of activists while they prayed to God and asked for guidance. Breitbart completely smeared the community organizers with an entirely trumped-up charge.
He bungled the audio when the whole point of the gotcha video was the words chanted on the audio. If the community organizers weren't saying "Obama," which they weren't, than the whole smear falls apart. Which it has.
Andrew, please tell us again how you're going to single-handedly re-invent conservative journalism. Because if this is what you have in mind, it's gonna be a laugh riot to watch.
UPDATED: Clueless right-wing bloggers are still touting Breitbart's misguided hatchet job (i.e the "shocking video"), even though Breitbart's site admits it has no idea what people are saying on the video.
UPDATED: Like I said, so much for conservative "journalism."
Here's Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein, on today's statements from Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer that they don't have 60 votes:
There are two questions here. The first is "60 votes for what?" Do they not have 60 votes in favor of a health-care plan that includes a public option? Or do they not have 60 votes against a filibuster of a health-care plan that includes a public option? If it's the former, that's okay: You only need 51. If it's the latter, that's a bigger problem. But I'd be interested to hear which Democrats will publicly commit to filibustering Barack Obama's health-care reform bill. If that's such a popular position back home, why aren't more Democrats voicing it loudly?
Hey, that's a great point!
Actually, it reminds me of something I wrote a month ago:
Would Joe Lieberman really filibuster health insurance reform favored by Obama and the overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats after Obama and those same Senate Democrats did Lieberman the favor of allowing him to continue to chair the Government Affairs Committee after Lieberman ran against the Democratic nominee for his seat, endorsed the Republican presidential candidate, and attacked Obama in a speech at the Republican National Convention? Remember, he didn't even filibuster the "seriously flawed" bankruptcy bill he opposed in 2005.
Would John McCain really filibuster health insurance reform favored by a majority of the U.S. Senate just a year after voters chose Obama's approach to health care over his own?
Maybe. It's certainly possible. But isn't it odd that nobody has asked them? That the news media, which insist over and over that cloture is what matters, don't ask senators who express skepticism about, or opposition to, health care reform whether they will filibuster it?
I suspect there is some universe of senators -- I have no idea how many -- who want to kill health care reform (or at least large parts of it, like the public option) but who aren't willing to have its blood on their hands. So they calibrate their public statements in an effort to scare off advocates of a public option, hoping that, as a result, they never have to cast a vote against it.
Because if it comes to a vote, they'll have an awfully hard time filibustering legislation that would make health care available to all and more affordable for those who already have it. They'll have an awfully hard time casting a vote to deny a floor vote to legislation that enjoys the support of the majority of both houses of Congress and is the top legislative priority of a president elected on a promise of health care reform just last year.
I understand why they would take this approach. They want to avoid taking a definitive position on a contentious issue -- particularly on the question of whether they'd filibuster health care reform. That's completely understandable, if not admirable. And they're trying to shape health care reform through their vague-but-ominous statements. That's understandable, too -- it's a basic element of negotiation.
What is harder to understand is why so many reporters would help politicians avoid taking a stand.
Maybe it's finally time for reporters to start asking Senators if they will filibuster the public option -- not just whether they support it, or think it has enough votes. Will they filibuster it?
Given how much reporters write and say about the need for 60 votes to break a filibuster, it's pretty stunning that they never get around to asking Senators whether they'll vote to sustain or end a filibuster.