Right-wing media have falsely claimed -- citing no evidence -- that alleged Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat. Media Matters for America has contacted the offices of the registrar in Shahzad's hometowns and confirmed that he is in fact not a registered voter in those towns.
Right-wing blogs have seized on comments OMB Director Peter Orszag made on April 8 at the Economic Club of Washington to claim that he admitted that there are "death panels" in the new health care law.
Will this ridiculousness ever stop?
The latest iteration is just a recycled version of a previous death panels claim that was debunked back in December.
Today, Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft claimed that "Sarah Palin was right" and posted a video clip of Orszag's comments, complete with Breitbart TV's dubious title: "Obama's Budget Director: Powerful Rationing Panel (Not Doctors) Will Control Health Care Levels."
The "powerful rationing panel" is the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. Here are Orszag's comments highlighted in the video being pushed by Breitbart and the right-wing blogs:
ORSZAG: Well, let me just first pause and point out that's exactly what we just created for Medicare. So this Independent Payment Advisory Board has the power and the responsibility to put forward proposals to hit a pretty aggressive set of targets over the long term. And furthermore, the proposals take effect automatically, unless Congress not only specifically votes them down but the President signs that bill. So the default is now switched in a very important way on the biggest driver over long-term cost, which is the Medicare program.
DAVID RUBENSTEIN [President, Economic Club of Washington]: Was that explained to Members of Congress very carefully?
ORSZAG: Yes, it was and that's why this was something that was very difficult to actually - this is why I think it was underappreciated, that this is a very substantial change. Again, a lot will depend on whether it realizes its potential, and how the culture develops, but it has statutory power to put forward proposals to reduce healthcare cost growth overtime and improve quality,and those proposals take effect automatically if Congress ignores them, or if Congress votes them down and the President vetoes that bill. So in other words, inertia now plays to the side of this independent board.
Palin herself tried in vain in December to push this claim that the Independent Payment Advisory Board amounted to a "death panel." Dick Morris also pushed it on Fox News, falsely claiming that the board will say "you can't treat this person with colon cancer with the best drug available."
In fact, the health care law specifically prohibits the Advisory Board from "any recommendations to ration health care ... or otherwise restrict benefits."
Sarah Palin was not right, contrary to what Hoft claimed. She was very, very wrong -- no matter how many times her right-wing defenders push this debunked nonsense.
On Fox & Friends, Dick Morris admitted he fabricated his "bombshell" claim that in 1997, then-Attorney General Janet Reno threatened President Clinton by saying that if he did not reappoint her as attorney general, she was "gonna tell the truth about Waco" -- a claim the right-wing media uncritically promoted. Following Morris' admission that his claim was actually his "conjecture based on the facts," will the same media outlets run a retraction noting that Morris has now admitted that Clinton "didn't actually say" what Morris claimed?
Rush Limbaugh joined other right-wing media in promoting Fox News analyst Dick Morris' dubious claim that in 1997, President Clinton told Morris that Clinton had reappointed then-Attorney General Janet Reno because she threatened to "tell the truth about Waco." However, Morris' story contradicts his previous account of a conversation he had with Clinton about reappointing Reno. In that account, Morris gave no indication that Clinton had confided to him about any alleged threats from Reno.
Right-wing media figures, led by Sarah Palin, have continued to distort President Obama's comments that "whether we like it or not," the United States "remain[s] a dominant military superpower," in order to suggest that Obama is opposed to the U.S. holding this position.
At his nuclear conference last week Barack Obama broke the sad truth to Americans,
"Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower."
And, he's supposed to be the leader?
He really believes America is the problem not the solution. Whether he liked it or not, this provoked Sarah Palin to pen her latest blog post on his radicalism. The former Alaskan governor nailed President Obama on his open regret for American exceptionalism.
In recent days, Fox News and the conservative media have seized on the official logo of the Nuclear Security Summit to claim its image "looks like" an Islamic crescent. However, as Comedy Central's Jon Stewart noted, "the inspiration for the logo is actually the Rutherford-Bohr Model of the atom that we all learned about in high school."
From an April 14 Gateway Pundit post:
Obama's nuclear summit logo is an Islamic crest.
Via Evil Conservative.
It's just weird. We all know he's a good Christian. We've even seen his church.
More at EC.
Right-wing media misleadingly cropped remarks made by President Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit to suggest Obama is opposed to America remaining "a dominant military superpower." In fact, Obama said that as a "military superpower," the U.S. has an interest in reducing tensions between foreign nations because violent conflict abroad inevitably "ends up costing" the United States "significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
How delusional are these two con 'news' sites? Both Free Republic and Gateway Pundit are now claiming they were vindicated for their 'reporting' about a young GOP fundraiser and her boyfriend who were beaten in New Orleans over the weekend. They claim they were vindicated even though they pushed a completely debunked and irresponsible, Palin victimology rumor about the unfortunate New Orleans incident; a rumor that even Michelle Malkin condemned as being bogus.
When I wrote yesterday that Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft isn't even right twice a day, it turns out I understated how deeply he's embedded inside a fact-free parallel universe.
UPDATED: And BTW, if Hoft is so proud of his New Orleans reporting, whey did he quietly alter his bogus headline (without acknowledging that fact) after I called him out? What a coward.
UPDATED: So naturally Hoft is now pushing his dishonest New Orleans garbage at Andrew Breitbart's site. Makes perfect sense.
UPDATED: Desperate to attach the New Orleans attack to liberal protesters who were in town for a GOP event, Hoft is now posting photos of specific New Orleans protesters and, based on zero evidence, suggesting perhaps they were behind the brutal beating, which police are still investigating.
I hope Hoft has a good lawyer.
And keep in mind that local GOP officials have already made clear there's no evidence to suggest local protesters were involved in the beating. But that doesn't deter wingnuts from bouts of mindless irresponsibility.
Right-wing media figures and outlets have revived their obsession with President Obama's supposed "bowing" by highlighting a photo of Obama greeting Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Nuclear Security Summit. Conservative media have previously attacked Obama's greetings of Saudi King Abdullah, Japanese Emperor Akihito, and Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio.
On March 23, Sarah Palin tweeted "'Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!'" and posted to her Facebook page the following map with a list of House Democrats who voted for health care reform with crosshairs aimed at their locations:
In the wake of criticism over Palin's rhetoric, Fox Nation posted the following image referring to a Democratic strategy map as a "'Violent' Targeting Map":
The image linked to a Gateway Pundit post by Jim Hoft. From the post:
Right-wing media have accused Rep. Henry Waxman and the Obama administration of "tyrannical" actions after Waxman announced a hearing looking into several large corporations' assertions about prescription drug costs related to health care reform. According to Waxman, the companies' claims "appear to conflict with independent analyses."
Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft mockingly claims to be "relie[ved]" by the Seattle Times' correction to last week's report that "A rock was thrown through the window of [Rep. Steve] Driehaus' [D-OH] Cincinnati office." He sarcastically provides the following description:
The Seattle Times reported Thursday on another horrible political attack. TheTimes claimed that liberal democrat Rep. Steve Driehaus had a rock thrown though his office window:
Protesters have been demonstrating at Driehaus' Ohio home, said Tim Mulvey, a spokesman for the anti-abortion Democrat who joined Stupak in voting for the health bill. A rock was thrown through the window of Driehaus' Cincinnati office Sunday, and a death threat was phoned in to his Washington office a day later, Mulvey said.
"It's getting out of hand," Mulvey said.
Hoft, however, has no comment on the part of the correction where the Times says that they didn't make up a rock getting thrown through the window of a Democratic office, they just got the office wrong:
This story, published Wednesday, March 24, 2010, was corrected Friday, March 26, 2010. The prior version said a rock was thrown through the window of Ohio Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus' Cincinnati office Sunday. Bloomberg News attributed the statement to Driehaus' spokesman Tim Mulvey. Mulvey said Friday that he was misquoted. A rock was thrown through the window of Hamilton County Democratic Party headquarters in Cincinnati, Mulvey said.
This is, of course, exactly what I said had probably happened last week when the right-wing blogosphere claimed the Times story was an example of liberal media bias. And now, bizarrely, once it's pointed out that there was a "horrible political attack" but the Times had the details wrong, they're declaring victory.
Right-wing blogs have responded to reported threats against Democrats who voted for the health care reform bill by trivializing the threats or suggesting that the reports are false, condemning the threats but making excuses for them, suggesting that Democrats themselves are to blame for receiving the threats, or suggesting other acts of violence that people could commit against their congressional representative.