Check out this MSNBC graphic:
"Cougar," for the three people still blissfully unaware, is a slang term applied to women who date younger men.
Men who date younger women, on the other hand, are typically described with a slightly less loaded term: "men."
In addition to being an extraordinarily angry far-right blogger, Pam Geller is a columnist for Newsmax. While Geller seems to have slightly tempered what she writes in her Newsmax column, she's gone absolutely nuts on her own Atlas Shrugs blog, viciously smearing Obama.
From a Dec. 11 post:
Obama is pressuring Jews to "evacuate" from parts of Israel? And what Warsaw ghetto does the muhammadan president have in mind? I think I am gonna hurl.
The Jews will not go. The Jews will not submit to this century's nazis and Mansourian poser. No way, bloodsuckers. Not again. Never again.
From a Dec. 14 post:
It's as if the floodgates of hell have been thrown open. The moratorium on the holocaust is officially over and all the savages are free to incite, hate and destroy. Clearly those "Kick a Jew" days discussed here and here in schools are part of this growing evil Evil unleashed with an anti-semite in the White House.
From a Dec. 15 post:
Obama is bringing his jihad to Illinois. Has anyone asked the people of Chicago if they want KSM's soul mates in their state? Obama's treachery is breathtaking. A killer's paradise.
After its experiences with other columnists making extreme claims over the past few months -- John L. Perry advocating a military coup against Obama, Pat Boone calling for a "tenting" of the White House to kill the "varmints" within -- is Geller really the kind of columnist Newsmax wants to have? Or is Newsmax willing to allow Geller to be as disgusting and hateful as she wants to be on her blog as long as she tones it down for her column?
Yesterday, we pointed out that Fox News' unofficial gay-baiter Maxim Lott had followed up on his false allegations against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings - which resulted in a humiliating retraction - with a new smear piece.
In an article headlined "Obama's Safe Schools Czar Tied to Lewd Readings for 7th Graders," Lott reported that Jennings "is under fresh attack after it was revealed that the pro-gay group he formerly headed recommends books his critics say are pornographic." Lott buried the group's disclaimer that those books recommended for grades 7-12 "contain mature themes" and the recommendation that "adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability," grossly distorted the contents of those books, and at least two of the "critics" he cited are anti-gay bigots.
In short, he did an atrocious job. But hey, if there's anything we've learned over the past months, it's that there's a market for smears of Jennings; no matter how dubious, the right-wing fever swamp will run with it.
And so, Gateway Pundit - who's been channeling Jennings smears from the anti-gay "hate group" MassResistance for the past few weeks -- quickly picked it up:
And, of course, it's currently the top story on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com:
Oh, by the way, neither Hoft nor BigGovernment are acknowledging that Lott actually debunks one of the false smears they pushed - that "fisting kits" were distributed at a 2001 GLSEN event. According to Lott, "The kit was actually for making a "dental dam" -- designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex." Which, of course, was pretty obvious, given that the kit reportedly consisted of "a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant," and instructions titled "How to Make a Dental Dam From a Latex Glove."
Paul Ryan: Obama would lose if election were held today
Lede [emphasis added]:
President Barack Obama wouldn't be elected to that position if the election were held today, a top Republican claimed Monday.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee, said that more than a year after Obama was elected president with 53 percent of the popular vote, Americans wouldn't select him if the vote were held again today.
What's next from The Hill, breaking news articles about GOP members of Congress who oppose health care reform?
Yesterday, Dean Baker and I argued that journalists should remember that they don't know what politicians think or believe, they only know what politicians say -- and their reporting should reflect that.
Now here's MSNBC's Kelly O'Donnell explaining Joe Lieberman's opposition to the Medicare buy-in a few minutes ago:
Some moderates, most notably Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, were against this idea, feeling it would put too great a burden on a federal program that's already stretched very thin.
No. Kelly O'Donnell does not know that Joe Lieberman feels any such thing. She knows he says it -- but, if she's been paying attention at all, she has good reason to suspect he isn't telling the truth.
See, O'Donnell didn't mention this, but Lieberman has supported the Medicare buy-in. He supported it as long ago as 2000, and he supported it as recently as three months ago. Between that and the fact that so many of his comments about health care this year have been false or inconsistent, there's no reason to assume his stated reasons for opposing the Medicare buy-in are true.
And, indeed, there is a growing universe of journalists who recognize this.
The NBC News political unit notes there is "growing evidence that Lieberman's objection to the Medicare 'buy-in' compromise isn't necessarily based on principle. ... This is why the charge of playing politics with the left is looking so believable to some." The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports that "there have apparently been a number of private assurances given -- and broken -- by the Connecticut senator in recent weeks." And even Lieberman defender Charles Lane says Lieberman is motivated by a desire for political "pay back."
So why do Kelly O'Donnell and the New York Times continue to take Lieberman's claims at face value? Do they understand that when they do so, they're covering up -- rather than revealing -- what's really happening? That they're helping a politician mislead the public?
Does the New York Times have some sort of policy against pointing out that Joe Lieberman's justifications for opposing health care reform are bunk?
Two days ago, Times reporters Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn quoted Lieberman saying the public option would "add to the deficit" without noting that the Congressional Budget Office says it will reduce the deficit. (Pear and Herszenhorn know the CBO says that -- they've reported it in other articles. They just kept quiet about it when it would contradict Lieberman.)
Today, Herszenhorn and David Kirkpatrick devote (another) entire article to Lieberman's opposition to health care. Here's how they present Lieberman's stated reasons for opposition the public option and Medicare buy-in:
Mr. Lieberman says he favors the essential elements of the health care legislation but fears that expanding government programs would compound the federal debt.
Again: no mention of the fact that the CBO says the public option would reduce the deficit (and, therefore, would not "compound the federal debt.")
At this point, a key part of the health care story is that Joe Lieberman is either deeply dishonest or has absolutely no idea what he is talking about (or both), Steve Benen and Jonathan Chait, among others, have noted. Yesterday, Marc Ambinder pointed out that Lieberman has been breaking promises to colleagues. Even Lieberman's defenders say he is killing health care reform to get revenge against liberals who opposed him in 2006. Yet the New York Times persists in taking Lieberman's obviously bogus claims at face value, and ignoring facts they have reported elsewhere that undermine his statements.
Somebody alert Bill O'Reilly, because if he's truly concerned about the so-called War on Christmas, he should start policing the right-wing blogosphere, where overexcited partisans like Andrew Breitbart and The Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft have taken to openly mocking the Christian holiday in the name of waging partisan, homophobic attacks.
The smear stems from the duo's relentless, yet thoroughly ineffective, campaign directed at the Obama administration's openly gay "Safety School Czar," Kevin Jennings. Rehashing a well-told story from nearly a decade ago, the duo--still without any actual proof--claim Jennings knew about sexual explicit topics that were discussed with school children as part of conference at Tufts University, sponsored by the group Jennings ran, Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.
One of the explicit topics reportedly covered a conference workshop was fisting (a revelation that Jennings later criticized), so naturally Breitbart and Hoft started referring to the smear campaign as "Fist-gate." (Get it?!)
But the overly-excited anti-gay duo didn't stop there. Perhaps driven by simmering frustration over the fact nobody in the real news world cares about their pointless story, Breitbart and Hoft, for some bizarre reason, starting tying Fist-gate" in with Christmas, dubbing it "Fist-mas."
I kid you not.
From Breitbart's Twitter:
And here's the Big Government headline from Jim Hoft:
Merry Fist-mas Media Matters… No, We're Not Finished Yet
Yep, Breitbart and Hoft decided to make the connection between the birth of Jesus Christ with an anal sex act. Isn't that kind of blasphemy just so clever and funny? It's it just priceless when conservatives demean one of Christianity's most spiritual days in order to try to score partisan, gay-baiting points?
I doubt I'm the only one offended by the need of unhinged, Obama-hating partisan to belittle even the Christmas holiday in order to try to tie in with their pointless Kevin Jennings crusade. And like I said, if Bill O'Reilly and the whole Christmas Police Dept. at Fox News were serious about calling out people who demean the miracle birth, they ought to demand that Breitbart and Hoft cut with the Fist-mas attacks on Christmas, and demand that they offer up public apologies.
That is, if the two `wingers even think the holiday is worth honoring.
From Jerome Corsi's December 14 article at WorldNetDaily.com:
Watching the Senate press last week toward passage of President Obama's universal health care, my Red Alert is forced to contemplate whether a socialist agenda is intending to bankrupt the United States with trillion-dollar social-welfare programs there is no way the country will ever be able to afford.
In "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," I clearly established that Barack Obama is trained in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" methodology of lying to voters to disguise a true intent to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots."
But as we watch President Obama expand the social-welfare state to an unprecedented level, the question is this: Is Barack Obama silently pursuing the Cloward-Piven strategy with an intent to destroy private-enterprise capitalism itself?
Is President Obama intentionally placing so many on the government dole, including the inclusion of illegal aliens in Obamacare, because he wants to bankrupt the United States to destroy the private enterprise system, following the lead of the leftist radicals that employed the Cloward-Piven strategy to bankrupt New York City in the 1970s?