Well, for about a third of a sentence, anyway. Still, it's a start. Here's Savage, as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle:
"I'm going to make an allegation that I can't support: these out of context soundbites came from Media Matters, funded by George Soros, whose goal is to wipe out conservative voices in America,'' he told the Chronicle. "If it turns out they're continuing to do this, they're next on my list. I'm not going to tolerate them trying to get me killed.''
What has Savage so upset this time? He has gotten it into his head that Media Matters is responsible for him being banned from the United Kingdom.
Savage, incidentally, once said of Media Matters: "They have no place in America." And he once said "If I had the power by executive order, I would round up every member of the ACLU and of the National Lawyers Guild, and I'd put them in a prison in Guantánamo and I'd throw the key away." So it's a little amusing to see him so upset about his views not being welcome in Britain.
Savage also once reportedly compared Media Matters to HIV. And he lost his MSNBC television show when he told a caller to "get AIDS and die." That last one doesn't have much to do with Savage's latest outburst, though it does have to do with him being a world-class jerk.
Anyway, he's now threatening to sue Media Matters, which would be consistent with his history of suing his critics. His lawsuits don't tend to be successful in court, but maybe they help him feel like he has regained the "manhood" that he says the government "stole" from him.
In any case, Savage has a long and despicable history of making baseless and false allegations; it's nice to see that, for once, he admits he's making things up.
As I've been noting all day, it's becoming increasingly clear that the conservative opposition to Sotomayor's SCOTUS nomination has nothing to do with the law or her legal opinions. And I'm amazed the press hasn't pointed that out. Has there ever been an effort to thwart a Supreme Court nomination that had so little to do with the law before?
Anyway, I mentioned earlier a Politico report on the Sotomayor pushback which failed to note the obvious trend. (i.e The law has nothing to do with it.) Now there's an opinion piece in Politico penned by former Republican senator (and current Philadelphia Inquirer columnist ) Rick Santorum. It's headlined:
Why I would oppose Sotomayor
I foolishly assumed that Santorum would spell out why, if he were still in the U.S. Senate, he would vote against the Sotomayor nomination. I foolishly assumed Santorum's media column would highlight what troubled him about Sotomayor's legal record which would make her unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
Big mistake on my part. Santorum, in his Politico essay about why he would vote against Sotomayor, never even pretends to present a legal basis for his opposition. None. Zero. Zilch.
This is where the press has allowed the 'debate' about Sotomajor to go in just eight days time: Conservatives don't even bother to articulate a rationale legal reason why Sotomayor isn't qualified, yet the press still takes their opposition very, very seriously.
I know, I know, he's never going to 'blog' again. But still, the damage Rosen has already done to the Sotomayor 'debate' with his wildly irresponsible hit piece, which has now been turned into GOP talking points, is almost incalculable.
I bring Rosen up today because I just read this GOP dispatch from the Washington Independents David Weigel about disgraced Congressional staffer Manny Miranda and his hope that Sotomayor Borks herself at her confirmation hearings:
I asked Miranda about the basis of this theory after the luncheon. "I've read Jeff Rosen's piece ["The Case Against Sotomayor"]," he said, "and that's what I'm going on. I haven't met the lady." He added this to "what I've heard from practitioners on the second circuit, and they don't like her" and wondered if the coming American Bar Association survey of lawyers' opinions of Sotomayor could reflect all of this negative feedback.
"When that survey comes out, if it reflects Jeff Rosen's article, it could be pretty explosive. I think she she might want to take the committee on, to engage, in a Bork-like fashion. The more recent two [nominees] have been very disciplined, more controlled."
P.S. As I noted earlier today, the conservative movement's opposition to Sotomayor has virtually nothing to do with her legal opinions. (i.e. Miranda's betting she too emotional.) Question: How many weeks and months will it take before the press acknowledges that every odd fact?
Courtesy of NBC's Luke Russert:
Seeking to keep House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's back-and-forth with the CIA in the news ... House Minority Leader John Boehner once again called for a bipartisan investigation into Pelosi's allegations that the CIA deliberately misled her.
In a news conference on Capitol Hill, speaking for less than two minutes prior to taking questions, Boehner discussed nothing but Pelosi. ...
Continuing his criticism, Boehner remarked that Pelosi should "offer proof that intelligence officials lied to her or retract the statement and offer an apology."
Boehner then reiterated his previous call for a bi-partisan investigation into the issue saying, "This is a matter that is serious and requires a bi-partisan organization to get the facts." Later, Boehner went on to say: "I am disappointed House Democrats continue to stonewall this investigation and my hope is that the Speaker will step up and bring this issue to rest once and for all."
In response to a question regarding how he would continue to press the issue, Boehner said: "All options are on the table."
Russert didn't bother to mention that Boehner has previously opposed a formal investigation into the matter. Nor did he mention that Pelosi has called on the CIA to "release the briefings."
Most importantly, Russert failed to mention that Pelosi advocates a formal, bipartisan investigation into the Bush administration's use of torture -- and that Boehner opposes such an investigation. That's a pretty big omission, as it makes Boehner's claim to want to find out what Pelosi knew look empty and political.
Instead of mentioning any of that -- you know, performing an act of journalism -- Russert just typed up Boener's comments and slapped on a headline more fitting to a fanzine summary of a pro-wrestling match: "Boehner calls out Pelosi -- again."
Oh, Boehner "calls out" Pelosi, does he? How exactly does he "call her out"? By asking the CIA to release the briefings? Oh, wait -- that's what Pelosi has done. By supporting a formal investigation into the use of torture? Oh, wait -- that's what Pelosi has done, and what Boehner opposes.
Boehner hasn't "called out" anyone. He's performed a stunt, and gotten a rookie reporter to type up his comments without adding any context.
UPDATE: Russert seems to be on the coveted "follow John Boehner around and type up whatever he says" beat. Here are his last three entries on MSNBC's First Read:
Boehner calls out Pelosi -- again
Boehner slams Obama, Pelosi
GOP knocks public health care, Pelosi
None of the three contains so much as a word of critical assessment of what Boehner said, or a word of response from the Democrats. You would think that at some point, NBC News would realize they could save some money by just giving Boehner's press secretary the ability to post things to First Read directly.
As Media Matters notes, not that long ago pundit Carlson, like virtually all members of the conservative tribe, claimed that "dismissing your opponents by calling them racists and bigots" is "name calling" and "beneath contempt."
The GOP Noise Machine hated it whenever liberals (allegedly) played the race card. Pundits like Carlson decried the rhetorical practice as a cheap, emotional stunt designed to steer the conversation away from what really mattered.
And yes, this is the same Carlson who has been out in front of the Sotomayor's-a-racist bandwagon. So we'll wait to hear from Carlson as to why he once thought it was despicable to call a political opponent a racist, and why today he's going online and on TV to do that very thing. (i.e. Sotomayor's a "racist kook.")
We'd be especially curious to know if Carlson's recently penned contract with the far-right Fox News is responsible for this obvious flip-flop.
The conservative columnist actually sets out in the right direction with her column headlined:
It's Not Fair To Casually Call People Racist
The point seem blindingly obvious, but it's one that very few media people have been willing to make in the last seven days. But rather than take Limbaugh and Gingrich to task for their hateful "racist" rhetoric, Charen falls into the same predictable trap that every other Beltway player has and dutifully plays dumb about Sotomayor's "Latin woman" quote.
But this was the passage that really jumped out at me:
Nevertheless, the instant labeling of the woman, based on one unwise remark, is hardly fair. If Democrats are learning this now, that's excellent news. One hopes they will remember this discovery when the wheel turns and a Republican nominee is before the Senate. Certainly they didn't seem to get it as recently as 2002, when President Bush nominated Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A-ha! Charen found an example from the recent past when a Republican president nominated a judge to the federal bench and Democrats casually, and incorrectly, labeled the judge a racist!
Slight problem: That's not what happened because that's not what Democrats did. At least Charen can't cite a single example of any Democrat ever calling Judge Pickering a "racist." (If she could, I assume Charen would have included the quote in her column.)
It's true there was a very heated debate about Pickering's civil rights record on the bench; a record that stretched back many, many years. But the Democratic attacks on Pickering were not built around a single sentence from a speech, the way the "racist" assault is being waged against Sotomayor and a speech she made in 2001. The concerns Democrats had about Pickering were based on his judicial record. Plus, Democrats never called Pickering a racist, the way right-wing pundits are denouncing Sotomayor.
So basically, there's no comparison between the two nominations, but Charen pretends there is.
From a Washington Post online discussion with reporter Ed O'Keefe:
Dunn Loring, Va.: Although The Post has had several stories about Sotomayor quoting her friends and even had a chat with the head of an organization of which she was a board member, when can we expect a story about her involvement with La Raza, which supports the return of the western US to Mexico?
Ed O'Keefe: There'll be plenty of time between now and confirmation.
The National Council of La Raza does not support any such thing.
The Politico headline:
Right demands tougher fight on Sonia Sotomayor
The article itself is what the Beltway press adores: process. It's about how movement conservatives are demanding GOP senators filibuster Sotomayor's nomination, but that appears very unlikely to happen, and how two prominent conservative activists got into a tiff at a closed door meeting last week about their Sotomayor strategy, etc.
What's telling is that news outlets like Politico don't seem to think it's odd that there's a conservative movement afoot to stop Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination and the movement has virtually nothing to do with the law or her rulings from the bench. Conservatives aren't even talking about Sotomayor and the law, yet the press treats their opposition as being very important and newsworthy. Because when conservatives play hardball, it's news.
It's hard to believe that if liberals opposed Bush's SCOTUS nominees Samuel Alito and John Roberts with attacks that had nothing to do with their legal opinions, that the press would have taken that opposition seriously. But today conservatives don't even pretend to be interested in Sotomayor's legal record, and the press acts like that's completely normal for a confirmation battle.
Yesterday, Newsbusters' Kyle Drennan complained that a news report about the murder of Dr. George Tiller didn't describe him as "controversial." In response, I wrote:
Calling Tiller "controversial" just because because conservative anti-abortion terrorists tried to, and finally did, kill him is insulting, and suggests some justification for the assassination. Calling him "controversial" blames the victim. Drennen's complaints that CBS didn't offer such justification for Tiller's assassination is creepy, at best.
Today, Newsbusters' Colleen Raezler makes it explicit, complaining: "In failing to highlight what Tiller's work actually entailed, reporters do nothing to help their audience understand why this man was targeted."
I thought conservatives usually criticize people for offering "understanding" to terrorists?
Raezler goes on to complain that the media has portrayed Tiller as a "martyr":
Tiller as Abortion Rights Martyr
Broadcast networks painted Tiller as a man willing to die in defense of women's rights.
All of the broadcast coverage noted past attempts people have made to disrupt Tiller's work - a bombing of his clinic in the 1980s and a 1993 attack in which he was shot in both arms - which, while pertinent to the story, also increased the aura of martyrdom that now surrounds him.
Notice what Raezler doesn't say: she doesn't so much as hint at disapproval of the terrorists who bombed Tiller's clinic and shot him. Instead, she is unhappy that mentioning those events increases "the aura of martyrdom that now surrounds" Tiller.
UPDATE: Two months ago, Raezler complained that media didn't make clear that a plane crash victim "made the money for this exclusive vacation was paid for partly through abortion [sic]." Here's Raezler:
Media Ignore Abortion Connection in Montana Plane Crash Coverage
[C]orrectly reporting the deaths of fourteen people as a tragedy doesn't mean the media necessarily did their job. If they feel compelled to note that victims were "ultrarich," they should also note the business that made them that way. Particularly if it's as controversial as abortion.
though the AP deemed it necessary to include facts about family's economic status, they failed to think it necessary to include that Feldkemp made the money for this exclusive vacation was paid for partly through abortion.
Feldkamp is listed as the president of Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc., a health care organization that is California's largest for-profit abortion provider. Its Web site lists 17 different abortion clinics throughout the state, and the group provides abortions up to the 22nd week of pregnancy.
Gingi Edmonds, a pro-life activist, reported this on March 24. Yet as of April 2, the mainstream media appeared to have whitewashed Feldkamp's abortion connection.