Members of the conservative media are attempting to scandalize President Obama's Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch by suggesting she was involved in the Whitewater investigations of the 1990s. However, the Loretta Lynch that played a bit role in Whitewater -- an investigation into fraudulent real estate deals that did not include any wrongdoing by the Clintons -- is a different person than Obama's attorney general nominee.
According to a November 8 Breitbart.com article by Warner Todd Huston, "few are talking about" the fact nominee Lynch "was part of Bill Clinton's Whitewater probe defense team in 1992." Huston pointed to a March 1992 New York Times article that "reported that Lynch was one of the Clintons' Whitewater defense attorneys as well as a 'campaign aide.'" And in a November 9 article Huston's colleague, Breitbart.com Senior Editor-at Large Joel Pollak wrote, "The connection to Whitewater ought to provide additional fodder for Republicans during Lynch's confirmation hearings":
The connection to Whitewater ought to provide additional fodder for Republicans during Lynch's confirmation hearings. It is odd that Obama chose someone so close to the Clintons--or perhaps not, given the prominent role played by Clinton insider John Podesta in the second term of the Obama White House. Lynch has been rewarded throughout her career for her political loyalty--not an unusual path up the career ladder for federal prosecutors, but certainly one that will allow the GOP, as well as Obama, to raise the political stakes.
The Loretta Lynch referred to in the New York Times article is a California based attorney who has worked on several prominent political campaigns, not Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch. Obama's nominee is shown on the right, while the Loretta Lynch Breitbart refers to is on the left:
Conservative media figures, led by Rush Limbaugh, have continually distorted and exaggerated the content of Sandra Fluke's testimony before Democratic members of Congress.
They have gone so far afield of Fluke's actual testimony that it often appears as if they never actually watched or read it.
Here are some of the conservative claims about Fluke's testimony, along with what she actually said.
A couple of days ago, ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross was reportedly roughly handled by members of Rep. Michele Bachmann's security team as he tried to ask the Republican presidential candidate about reports that she suffers from migraine headaches.
The behavior of Bachmann's staff has drawn criticism from several quarters, including (not surprisingly) ABC. ABC News senior vice president Jeffrey Schneider told the Washington Post: "It's unfortunate when physicality is involved. [Ross] was just doing his job."
Bachmann, however, does have the support Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism. Blogger Warner Todd Huston wrote today that "what happened to Ross is fairly mild and all his fault," and then responded to Schneider's quote with perhaps the most ridiculously inexplicable Nazi reference the internet has ever seen:
If you listen to the silly hyperbole from the far left blogrags, the media is being treated like the Egyptian protesters in Tahrir Square by Bachmann's campaign staff. Another lefty site says that Bachmann is indulging in "open conflict" with the press. Neither characterization is even close to the truth.
Jeffrey Schneider, a senior vice president for ABC news, denounced the incident saying, "He was certainly shoved around and pushed. It's unfortunate when physicality is involved. He was just doing his job."
I remember members of an army sometime in the mid 1940s saying that they were innocent because they were just doing their jobs, too.
Hah! Brian Ross is a Nazi war criminal! What?
Even better, Huston's absurd Godwinning is sandwiched between four separate condemnations of "hyperbole" from the media and progressives:
In a fit of wild hyperbole, Ross called his treatment by Bachmann similar to the treatment he's received "mostly by Mafia people"...
If you listen to the silly hyperbole from the far left blogrags...
With all this hyperbole and gnashing of teeth by the left...
In 2011 a reporter was simply blocked from getting to a candidate but not thrown to the ground. Result = outrage and hyperbole.
So Breitbart's Big Journalism wants us to get past all the overheated and outrageous rhetoric and focus on how ABC's Brian Ross is worse than Hitler. Perhaps then we can move on to the pressing matter of the crippling lack of self-awareness on right-wing blogs.
Right-wing media are attacking President Obama's reported comments that the United States can "absorb a terrorist attack" and that the country "absorbed [9-11] and we are stronger" by suggesting that Obama is "inviting another 9/11" and that he "doesn't care about Americans dying." However, conservatives have made similar comments -- including former President Bush.
The right-wing media is in full freak-out mode over President Obama's reported statement that, while "[w]e'll do everything we can to prevent" another terror attack, but that if one comes "we can absorb" it. But no response may be able to match that of Warner Todd Huston, who says in a post on Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit blog that "somehow I can't escape the feeling that this flippancy comes from Obama's envy that George W. Bush got a 'big event' to make his presidency."
Huston later adds:
I can just see him, green with envy that Bush got that big moment. If ONLY Hussein could get a big attack of his own, why THEN he'd show the world what a great president he could be! If only we could "absorb" a big one like 9/11, eh Barrack [sic]? And we'd take it.... and take it....
To make his claim, Huston, of course, has to ignore the fact that Obama said he would "do everything we can to prevent" another attack. What is particularly odd is that Huston should be aware of Obama's statement, since he quotes it in his blog post. Huston bolds the sentence before and after Obama's statement about preventing another attack, so maybe Huston just missed that statement:
The Washington Post gave us a sneak preview of Woodward's newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly toward another 9/11. (my bold)
Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever... we absorbed it and we are stronger."
Maybe Huston is trying to challenge Jim Hoft -- the usual "Gateway Pundit" blogger -- for the title of dumbest man on the Internet.
In a September 21 Gateway Pundit post, Warner Todd Huston responded to President Obama's reported comment that "[w]e can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever ... we absorbed it and we are stronger" by suggesting that Obama is "green with envy that Bush got that big moment" and that Obama wants "a big attack of his own" to "show the world what a great president he could be!"
From Huston's post:
Eh, don't worry, America. If there is another 9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can "absorb it" and just become "stronger" because of it. It's as if he wants it to happen, or something!
In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack.
But somehow I can't escape the feeling that this flippancy comes from Obama's envy that George W.Bush got a "big event" to make his presidency while all Obama has gotten is a bad economy, massive job loss, and dissatisfaction at every level of society. No big disaster that he could make his nut on. Heck he even wasted the BP Oil spill with weeks of inactivity.
I can just see him, green with envy that Bush got that big moment. If ONLY Hussein could get a big attack of his own, why THEN he'd show the world what a great president he could be! If only we could "absorb" a big one like 9/11, eh Barrack? And we'd take it.... and take it....
Now, remember the old days when we had a president that was willing to take the fight to the terrorists? Now we have a president that is waiting to "absorb" attacks on us, HERE. And we take it...
Right-wing media figures are attacking Fox News' Karl Rove for "trashing" Christine O'Donnell after her victory in the Delaware GOP Senate primary, stating that his comments were "disgraceful" and that Rove "came across as an effete sore loser."
Guest-blogging over at Gateway Pundit, Warner Todd Huston misleadingly suggested that Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland concocted a "Central American call center deal" by awarding stimulus funds to a Texas-based company that used an El Salvador-based call center to administer Ohio's stimulus-funded appliance rebate program:
What was it that Democrat President Barack Obama told us about the stimulus? Oh, yeah that it would "save or create" American jobs. Seems like a good idea, right? So what happened in Ohio when Democrat Governor Ted Strickland got his mitts on some of Obama's stimulus cash? Why he gave it to a company to fund a call center that is operating out of El Salvador, Central America, of course.
Jobs for Americans? Heck no, jobs for El Salvadorans! And why? Because it was a good deal, you see?
Earlier this year Governor Strickland's Department of Development awarded a $171,300 contract to a company named Parago. This company was hired by the state to operate a call center that Ohio residents can call to take advantage of a rebate program that the state set up so that Buckeyes could buy new household appliances and get a little sumpthin' back.
Apparently everything was going wonderfully for most of this year until one Ohio resident happened to ask one of the El Salvadoran phone jockeys where the call center was at which they were taking the calls. When the Buckeye was told Central America, said resident became incensed that federal "stimulus" money was going to fund jobs in El Salvador instead of in the United States -- like Obama promised it would.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer got wind of the incident and blew the lid off Ted "El Jefe" Strickland's Central American call center deal and the rest is, as they say, el historia.
But Strickland didn't make a "Central American call center deal." How do we know that? Because the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial to which Huston linked in his post specifically notes that the state of Ohio knew nothing of Parago's plans to use a Central American-based call center when it awarded Parago the contract.
Essentially, Huston helpfully debunked his own false suggestion.
Being a liberal is like being Hitler, murderer of over six million human beings, were he to have tsk tsked Pol Pot for being so evil as to have murdered three million Cambodians. There is no sense of shame with a liberal. They have no sense whatsoever that anything they've ever done should temper their reactions to the actions of others. They have no understanding of the old saw of throwing stones in glass houses.
The substance of Huston's bizarre screed is just as bad. Huston is blasting liberals for criticizing Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm before a Q&A session at this weekend's Tea Party festivities. See, Huston thinks this is hypocritical of the liberals, because President Obama often uses a teleprompter:
OK, let's take just a minute to go with that concept. Let's say that anyone that has to have notes for every single appearance is an idiot that cannot remember to draw a breath unless he has a note to remind him to do it.
If that is a solid point to make, we have but one word that can put little Steffie in his place, make Sarah seem like a genius, and diss his messiah all at once. That word...
That's right folks, if Sarah is an idiot for having four or five words scribbled on her palm to remind her of the order in which she wants to address the issues, then what is president Obama that has to set teleprompters up in a sixth grade class room to talk to the folks there?
Huston is right that there is hypocrisy at play here, but he somehow manages to miss the fact that it's Palin's hypocrisy. See, Palin bashed Obama for using a teleprompter even as she relied on notes scribbled on her hand to get through her appearance:
"This is about the people, and it's bigger than any one king or queen of a Tea Party, and it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter," she said.
That was just one of several digs at President Obama. (Ms. Palin herself read a prepared speech.)
Huston wraps up his embarrassing little rant by declaring liberalism a "mental disorder":
See what I mean about liberals? They have no sense of shame, no sense of proportion, not a single firing synapse to guide them. It truly is a mental disorder.
In a Sept. 30 post at Publius' Forum (copied at TheRealityCheck.org), longtime NewsBusters misleader Warner Todd Huston concedes that John L. Perry's Newsmax column advocating a military coup against President Obama "really does not add to the national debate" (yet defends the guy by asserting that it was "all speculation and phrased as a question, not asserted as fact or presented as imminent"). But then he writes:
But there is one tiny, little, bitty fact about this story and its author that every single one of these lefty sites that are railing about this story have left out.
The fact of the matter is that John L. Perry is not a conservative. In fact his bio page says that he's worked for Jimmy Carter, a Democrat governor of Florida and other Democrat Party institutions.
With all that background as a liberal democrat, Perry does not fit the normal image of a "right wing conservative." Yet not on eof the lefty sites going nuts on this story have mentioned this.
Warner curiously fails to mention that all of these "liberal democrat" connections occurred well over 30 years ago.
Further, Warner's claim is evidence that he has never read anything written by Perry, who has written for the right-wing Newsmax since 1999. In addition to his orgy of hatred against Obama, Perry has repeatedly demonstrated his right-wing credentials, and is particularly enamored with Sarah Palin. Sept. 1, 2008:
When you buck the local political establishment and stand up for honesty in government, people know what you're doing. In Alaska, they remember and adore Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin for that. They know her job was a lot harder than being mayor of a big city where you are a stranger to most constituents.
Those qualities do qualify this strong woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency - a condescending Barack Obama to the contrary notwithstanding.
Voters need not be predictable, stereotyped herds as Barack Obama cynically sees them. They can become their own independent mavericks, standing apart from the herd. Sarah Palin gets this. So does John McCain, who chose her.
People can identify with parents like Sarah and Todd Palin, who are not, thank God, embarrassed to be seen loving God's children. That difference is what is driving political elites crazy with fear -- fear that she will win and they will lose.
The Republican road back to the White House in 2012 looks a whole heck of a lot clearer and brighter now that it leads right through downtown Wasilla, Alaska (known also as Hometown, USA).
Only the losing vice-presidential aspirant, Sarah Palin, and her accidental, de facto running mate, Joe the plumber, spoke the middle-class language with believability. It came too late in the game.
Unless Huston can prove there's a huge "liberal Democrat" base Palin has tapped into, we can safely say without fear of contradiction that Perry is, in fact, a conservative.
Media conservatives have been fearmongering over health care reform, baselessly claiming that it will result in the denial of care, or, in the words of Laura Ingraham, "death camps" for the elderly.
NewsBusters' Warner Todd Huston falsely claimed that President Obama funded a $2.6 million NIH grant to "help train Chinese prostitutes to 'drink responsibly on the job.' " In fact, the grant was awarded during the Bush administration.