THE HILL by Mike Soraghan
Members of Congress will weigh in next week on two politically-charged murders that they have been wary of commenting about.
Resolutions condemning the murder of a Kansas abortion provider and the shooting of two Army recruiters have been scheduled for Tuesday in the House.
George Tiller, a physician specializing in late term abortions, was fatally shot Sunday in the vestibule of his Lutheran church.
Private William Andrew Long was killed and Quinton I. Ezeagwula was wounded in a shooting Monday at a Little Rock recruiting station. Police say the suspect, Abdulhakim Muhammad, 23, told investigators he wanted to kill as many Army personnel as he could "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."
Conservative commentators have criticized President Obama's statements on the two murders, saying his response to the Tiller murder was more forceful. Obama's statement about the recruiting station shooting said he was "deeply saddened." His statement on the Tiller murder said he was "shocked and outraged."
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has introduced a resolution condemning Tiller's murder. It was co-sponsored by more than 70 Democrats.
The resolution offers condolences to Tiller's family and states "violence is never an appropriate response to a difference in beliefs."
It also highlights violence occurring at churches, noting that 38 people in the United States have been killed in places of worship in the last 10 years.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) sponsored the resolution on the recruiting station shooting. Wording and co-sponsor information was unavailable Saturday.
Both resolutions have been placed on the suspension calendar, a fast-track procedure that requires a two-thirds vote.
Tiller's funeral was held Saturday under tight security at a United Methodist Church in Wichita.
The Justice Department Friday announced that it will conduct a federal investigation into Tiller's murder. The investigation, which is in addition to the local murder investigation, will focus on potential prosecution under federal laws that forbid blocking entry into clinics.
Few members of Congress have officially responded to either of the murders. In Kansas, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback (R), an ardent abortion opponent, is the only lawmaker in the six-member delegation to have posted a statement about the Tiller murder on his congressional website.
Brownback's four-sentence statement condemned the murder and said Brownback was "shocked and saddened."
No members of the Arkansas delegation have posted statements about the fatal shooting at the recruiting station.
But lawmakers have not been pressed hard for reaction. A press secretary for one congressional leader said the leaders' staff had prepared reaction for the Tiller murder if reporters asked, but it never came up.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
If They Can Find Time for Date Night ...
By JAN HOFFMAN
THEIRS is a seasoned marriage, 16 years and counting. They are middle-aged. Life is that modern-crazy haze: two girls in the windstorm of year-end school activities, the puppy that must be walked twice daily, the live-in mother-in-law. They both work long hours. Standard recipe for a drive-by relationship.
And yet.
At the gala celebrating the crowning achievement of his career, he showed her off to cheering throngs: “How good-looking is my wife?”
In his lock-step schedule, he sets aside daily “Michelle time.”
And last weekend, he fulfilled a promise to her. They got all gussied up and flew to New York, took a limo to dinner and a Broadway show, then flew home. Date night, just the two of them. Michelle and Barack. And their security detail.
From longtime marrieds-with-kids, the sounds of romance envy: Groan. Growl. Whimper. Sigh.
“I’m jealous,” said Emily Giffin, the Atlanta-based writer of “Love the One You’re With” and other chick-lit novels. Home stats: married seven years to a corporate executive, three children under 6.
Last date with husband? She’s thinking, she mutters. “We don’t have a date night, I have to say,” Ms. Giffin said. A lame excuse? Her husband’s beloved Pittsburgh Penguins are in the Stanley Cup finals. “But I flew to New York alone and went out with my friends while he stayed home with the kids,” she said. “Does that count?”
While some commentators were grousing about the presidential date’s undisclosed cost to the taxpayers, news of the romantic evening prompted many wives to glare across the breakfast table, trying to remember the last time their husbands made a fuss over them.
Elbowed sharply in the side, husbands felt betrayed by the commander in chief. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart reviewed the Obamas’ glamorous foray and screeched, “How do you compete with that?” He warned Mr. Obama, “Take it down a notch, dude!”
But relationship experts are applauding the first couple for giving life to the modern fantasy that longtime spouses can still be passionate about each other. Intentionally or not, the Obamas have become ambassadors for date night, a term that is a creature of these times. A generation ago, when Saturday night rolled around, parents simply went out. Now parents need to be prodded to date each other, as if they’re singles: take a break from the children, already!
“The Obamas really are products of the culture,” said Christine B. Whelan, a sociologist at the University of Iowa who studies the American family. The Obamas exemplify what sociologists call the “individualized marriage,” she added, where a thriving relationship is marked by love and mutual attraction, not just duty to family and social roles.
“As a society, we want to think a husband might still have his hand on his wife’s knee under the table after 15 years of marriage,” said Dr. Whelan, author of “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.” “That’s not necessarily bad, but it adds extra pressure.”
Joy Behar, a host on “The View,” whose marriage ended after 17 years, said nothing killed their sex drive like talking politics. So she said she understood the constraints on the first couple’s chemistry.
“And with a mother-in-law in the house?” she said. “Now that’s a real lust-corrector!” The president’s schedule posed unique marital challenges, she noted. Every day Mr. Obama has to weigh competing demands, Ms. Behar said: “Musharraf or Michelle? That’s a tougher thing for him than the average Joe. So it’s really meaningful when you watch them together.” She added, in a tone of wonderment, “He actually looks like he desires her.”
Some wives said, wistfully, that the White House also gave the Obamas restorative marital powers not available to average Joes and Josephines. Rita Rudner, the comedian, who met Mr. Obama last month at a fund-raiser for Senator Harry Reid, carped, “He just uses Air Force One to impress her. Because they usually fly Delta.”
Lisa Wolfe, a writer in New York, married for 17 years to a man named Joe, said of Mr. Obama: “He comes in like an action hero to save the country, and that’s hot. Plus, she’s got stylists and always looks great and is doing important work, too. So they’re getting each other at their best. I’d have a lot more pizzazz left for my husband, too, if we moved into the White House and my mother was on hand to baby-sit 24-7.”
Some husbands had their story and were sticking to it: emphatic cluelessness. Mark Hyman, a conservative television commentator, said his first reaction to the Obamas’ date night wasn’t envy, but bewilderment over how they managed to schedule one. He and his wife, he said, could scarcely keep up with coordinating weekend activities, scattered across Baltimore, of their three children, ages 7, 10 and 13.
“We’ve had family date nights,” offered Mr. Hyman, doing the math to figure out he has been married 15 — no, 14 — years. “A Jonas Brothers concert?”
Husband. Wife. Together. Alone? “Sometimes we talk about going to a film together,” he said, “but by the time we agree on one, it’s out on DVD.”
In some households, attention to the Obamas’ example was being paid. Eileen O’Connor, a Washington lawyer with five daughters, believes the “Yes We Can” message, marital version, is penetrating even her 19-year marriage. “Every time my husband hears about them on the news,” she said, “he looks at me out of the corner of his eye.”
So, first-class seats for two on a flight to New York? Not exactly.
“But late at night as he’s about to walk the dog, he’ll say, ‘Why don’t you come with me?’ ” Ms. O’Connor said. “That’s our Michelle time. Or maybe once a month we’ll walk to the local bistro for a glass of wine and hors d’oeuvres.”
After an hour, she said, “We look at each other and say, ‘O.K. We’re done!’ ”
She and other married friends have discussed the Obamas’ efforts to keep their marriage a priority. Ms. O’Connor’s husband, John Bilotta, seems to be taking the hint: Since Mother’s Day, he has been sending her flowers weekly.
As he was running family errands, Mr. Bilotta, a corporate media consultant, said in a phone interview: “It pops up on my BlackBerry on Tuesdays: ‘Send flowers to wife.’ ”
Although most spouses cannot create fairy-tale evenings on the order of Mr. Obama, couples could learn from his model, said Arthur Aron, a social psychologist who studies long-term relationships. Studies show that “couples who do things that are novel, challenging and exciting do a lot better,” said Dr. Aron, a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Even a picnic could suffice, he said.
Other couples cautioned against reading too much into what could be a staging of matrimonial contentment. “You never know what couples are really like,” said Ms. Rudner, who has been married 21 years. “I used to be jealous of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.”
And then there are those longtime couples who, prompted by the Obamas’ date night, looked across their breakfast tables last week and liked what they saw. Tracey Ullman, who stars in the Showtime series “State of the Union,” recalled that in December, her husband took her to Paris for their 25th anniversary and gave her a special ring.
“He wanted to get me a necklace,” Ms. Ullman recalled, “but my daughter, Mabel, said, ‘You’ve been married to her for 25 years, Dad! Haven’t you noticed, she doesn’t have a neck?’ ”
True, Ms. Ullman said: “I really don’t. But Allan has never noticed. He just said to Mabel, ‘But she has a lovely neck!’ ”
THEIRS is a seasoned marriage, 16 years and counting. They are middle-aged. Life is that modern-crazy haze: two girls in the windstorm of year-end school activities, the puppy that must be walked twice daily, the live-in mother-in-law. They both work long hours. Standard recipe for a drive-by relationship.
And yet.
At the gala celebrating the crowning achievement of his career, he showed her off to cheering throngs: “How good-looking is my wife?”
In his lock-step schedule, he sets aside daily “Michelle time.”
And last weekend, he fulfilled a promise to her. They got all gussied up and flew to New York, took a limo to dinner and a Broadway show, then flew home. Date night, just the two of them. Michelle and Barack. And their security detail.
From longtime marrieds-with-kids, the sounds of romance envy: Groan. Growl. Whimper. Sigh.
“I’m jealous,” said Emily Giffin, the Atlanta-based writer of “Love the One You’re With” and other chick-lit novels. Home stats: married seven years to a corporate executive, three children under 6.
Last date with husband? She’s thinking, she mutters. “We don’t have a date night, I have to say,” Ms. Giffin said. A lame excuse? Her husband’s beloved Pittsburgh Penguins are in the Stanley Cup finals. “But I flew to New York alone and went out with my friends while he stayed home with the kids,” she said. “Does that count?”
While some commentators were grousing about the presidential date’s undisclosed cost to the taxpayers, news of the romantic evening prompted many wives to glare across the breakfast table, trying to remember the last time their husbands made a fuss over them.
Elbowed sharply in the side, husbands felt betrayed by the commander in chief. On “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart reviewed the Obamas’ glamorous foray and screeched, “How do you compete with that?” He warned Mr. Obama, “Take it down a notch, dude!”
But relationship experts are applauding the first couple for giving life to the modern fantasy that longtime spouses can still be passionate about each other. Intentionally or not, the Obamas have become ambassadors for date night, a term that is a creature of these times. A generation ago, when Saturday night rolled around, parents simply went out. Now parents need to be prodded to date each other, as if they’re singles: take a break from the children, already!
“The Obamas really are products of the culture,” said Christine B. Whelan, a sociologist at the University of Iowa who studies the American family. The Obamas exemplify what sociologists call the “individualized marriage,” she added, where a thriving relationship is marked by love and mutual attraction, not just duty to family and social roles.
“As a society, we want to think a husband might still have his hand on his wife’s knee under the table after 15 years of marriage,” said Dr. Whelan, author of “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.” “That’s not necessarily bad, but it adds extra pressure.”
Joy Behar, a host on “The View,” whose marriage ended after 17 years, said nothing killed their sex drive like talking politics. So she said she understood the constraints on the first couple’s chemistry.
“And with a mother-in-law in the house?” she said. “Now that’s a real lust-corrector!” The president’s schedule posed unique marital challenges, she noted. Every day Mr. Obama has to weigh competing demands, Ms. Behar said: “Musharraf or Michelle? That’s a tougher thing for him than the average Joe. So it’s really meaningful when you watch them together.” She added, in a tone of wonderment, “He actually looks like he desires her.”
Some wives said, wistfully, that the White House also gave the Obamas restorative marital powers not available to average Joes and Josephines. Rita Rudner, the comedian, who met Mr. Obama last month at a fund-raiser for Senator Harry Reid, carped, “He just uses Air Force One to impress her. Because they usually fly Delta.”
Lisa Wolfe, a writer in New York, married for 17 years to a man named Joe, said of Mr. Obama: “He comes in like an action hero to save the country, and that’s hot. Plus, she’s got stylists and always looks great and is doing important work, too. So they’re getting each other at their best. I’d have a lot more pizzazz left for my husband, too, if we moved into the White House and my mother was on hand to baby-sit 24-7.”
Some husbands had their story and were sticking to it: emphatic cluelessness. Mark Hyman, a conservative television commentator, said his first reaction to the Obamas’ date night wasn’t envy, but bewilderment over how they managed to schedule one. He and his wife, he said, could scarcely keep up with coordinating weekend activities, scattered across Baltimore, of their three children, ages 7, 10 and 13.
“We’ve had family date nights,” offered Mr. Hyman, doing the math to figure out he has been married 15 — no, 14 — years. “A Jonas Brothers concert?”
Husband. Wife. Together. Alone? “Sometimes we talk about going to a film together,” he said, “but by the time we agree on one, it’s out on DVD.”
In some households, attention to the Obamas’ example was being paid. Eileen O’Connor, a Washington lawyer with five daughters, believes the “Yes We Can” message, marital version, is penetrating even her 19-year marriage. “Every time my husband hears about them on the news,” she said, “he looks at me out of the corner of his eye.”
So, first-class seats for two on a flight to New York? Not exactly.
“But late at night as he’s about to walk the dog, he’ll say, ‘Why don’t you come with me?’ ” Ms. O’Connor said. “That’s our Michelle time. Or maybe once a month we’ll walk to the local bistro for a glass of wine and hors d’oeuvres.”
After an hour, she said, “We look at each other and say, ‘O.K. We’re done!’ ”
She and other married friends have discussed the Obamas’ efforts to keep their marriage a priority. Ms. O’Connor’s husband, John Bilotta, seems to be taking the hint: Since Mother’s Day, he has been sending her flowers weekly.
As he was running family errands, Mr. Bilotta, a corporate media consultant, said in a phone interview: “It pops up on my BlackBerry on Tuesdays: ‘Send flowers to wife.’ ”
Although most spouses cannot create fairy-tale evenings on the order of Mr. Obama, couples could learn from his model, said Arthur Aron, a social psychologist who studies long-term relationships. Studies show that “couples who do things that are novel, challenging and exciting do a lot better,” said Dr. Aron, a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Even a picnic could suffice, he said.
Other couples cautioned against reading too much into what could be a staging of matrimonial contentment. “You never know what couples are really like,” said Ms. Rudner, who has been married 21 years. “I used to be jealous of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.”
And then there are those longtime couples who, prompted by the Obamas’ date night, looked across their breakfast tables last week and liked what they saw. Tracey Ullman, who stars in the Showtime series “State of the Union,” recalled that in December, her husband took her to Paris for their 25th anniversary and gave her a special ring.
“He wanted to get me a necklace,” Ms. Ullman recalled, “but my daughter, Mabel, said, ‘You’ve been married to her for 25 years, Dad! Haven’t you noticed, she doesn’t have a neck?’ ”
True, Ms. Ullman said: “I really don’t. But Allan has never noticed. He just said to Mabel, ‘But she has a lovely neck!’ ”
Saturday, June 06, 2009
MEDIA MATTERS - It does!! MediaMaters.Org WEEKLY
President Obama's trip to the Middle East and subsequent speech in Cairo were a predictable source of fodder for media conservatives. Then again, Obama's trips abroad tend to bring out the worst from the right: a complete rejection of honest self-reflection, implicit xenophobia and anti-Islamic bigotry, relentless fearmongering, and a desire to portray any critics of U.S. policy as being un-American.
In order to prove their point, the conservative media have routinely cropped Obama's statements, including his honest assessment of U.S. failures under the Bush administration while excluding his critiques of other nations. This gave rise to the "apology tour" theme that Fox News pushed heavily during Obama's trip to Europe in April. That theme was rekindled this week as Fox's Sean Hannity aired an Obama "apology tour" video montage, while Fox & Friends asked if Obama would continue his "'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia. This time, however, the theme had broader reach and was repeated by CNN's Lou Dobbs, as well as MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Ironically, the typically abysmal right-wing fringe radio host Neal Boortz defended the president, claiming that he "didn't see any apologia, show of weakness" in Obama's Cairo speech.
When Fox's Steve Doocy claimed that "some" commentators have referred to the trip "as President Obama's Muslim apology tour" (by "some," he apparently meant "Steve Doocy"), he found a way to link the right-wing belief that honesty equals weakness with conservatives' deathly fear of the world's largest religion, Islam, practiced peacefully by well over 1 billion people around the world, as well as millions here in America. Commentator Joe Pagliarulo joined in the fun while guest-hosting Glenn Beck's radio program. Channeling his inner 11th-grade thug, Pagliarulo showed stunning ignorance when he stated that instead of reaching out to Muslims, Obama should have said what he claimed Ronald Reagan would have: "Hey, screw you. We're big and bad, and we are the promoters of peace and independence and liberty around the world. Either get with us or you can go on hating us and we'll enjoy life and you'll live in your cave." And during a discussion of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the always-sage Ann Coulter made perfectly clear just who the far right thinks Obama was talking to this week, claiming, "Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful." No wonder, then, that the purportedly bias-free Fox Nation website felt compelled to warn its readers that "Obama Says U.S. Is a 'Muslim Country.' "
Classic right-wing fearmongering was on constant display this week, as Fox News' Dick Morris warned of an impending Holocaust, Hannity claimed that Obama had given Iran the "go-ahead" to build nuclear weapons, Rush Limbaugh stated that Obama is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, and radio talker Lee Rodgers held out the specter of a "few million dead Americans" finally proving that we are all under the thumb of an "anti-American president."
Rodgers really hit the nail on the head for the right, returning to the central theme of its argument over the past 18 months: The U.S.-born, Hawaii-raised, former senator from Illinois just isn't one of us. While CNN's Candy Crowley implied that the Obama administration wasn't a "stalwart defender" of Israel, numerous conservative media figures did whatever they could to prove that the president is taking orders from Riyadh, all while he is continuing his campaign to sublimate American sovereignty to the United Nations and turn America into a socialist/fascist nightmare.
It was fine with the right when President Bush held hands with the Saudi king as they walked through his palace, but ever since Obama politely bowed to the monarch, the right has been foaming at the mouth. The fixation with Obama and the king continued this week, as Fox's Gretchen Carlson and Doocy cited their initial interaction as the "most important moment" of their meeting. While CNN questioned whether shouts of admiration during Obama's Cairo address would be taken poorly "at home," a blog post at The Weekly Standard asked conspiratorially if the president secretly spoke "the language of the Koran."
When Joe Scarborough declared Obama to be "perhaps the greatest challenge Osama bin Laden has faced" since 2001, he gave the week one of its only moments of sanity and perspective. Unfortunately, he stood alone, and it was Fox News' Martha MacCallum who embodied the remarkable and dangerous lack of thought among those in the right-wing media establishment when she asked why we would "have to reach out to the Muslim population" when "we were the ones attacked on September 11th."
Other major stories this week:
The murder of Dr. George Tiller
Dr. George Tiller, a doctor whose clinic legally performed late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Kansas church this past weekend. In 1985, Tiller's clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot by an anti-choice activist in both arms. Following news of his murder, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry released a statement saying in part: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God."
As Media Matters noted, on the February 2, 1992, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reported: "While Terry insists he has never committed any violent acts himself, this footage, taped by the staff of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, shows him asking his followers to pray for either the salvation or the death of the clinic's doctor." 60 Minutes then aired video of Terry stating, "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him." Stahl added, "The doctor he's talking about is Warren Hern, who runs the clinic. He's been a major target of pro-life groups for years because he's one of only three doctors in the country who specialize in late-term abortions."
Coverage this week of the murder varied.
A report in USA Today falsely suggested that Tiller indiscriminately aborted viable fetuses. Its June 1 story reported that Tiller was a "controversial figure" whose clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable." But USA Today did not report that Kansas law permits the abortion of viable fetuses when the doctor performing the abortion and a second doctor agree that the "abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" or that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed -- physically or mentally -- by giving birth.
The right-wing media police at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog complained that media reports of Tiller's death failed to describe him as "controversial," even though several outlets described him just that way, including the previously mentioned USA Today article. To make its point that Tiller was in fact "controversial," NewsBusters cited a Kansas City Star "timeline of major events in George Tiller's career." The first entry in the timeline was the 1986 bombing of Tiller's clinic. The second was the 1991 blockade of his clinic by anti-choice protesters, leading to more than 2,500 arrests. The third was the 1993 shooting in which Tiller was hit in both arms. The fourth entry was a 1998 letter Tiller received threatening to contaminate his clinic with anthrax. The fifth was another illegal protest outside Tiller's clinic. The sixth and seventh were proceedings that found no wrongdoing by Tiller. And that was it; that's the whole list. Calling Tiller "controversial" just because conservative anti-choice terrorists tried to, and finally did, kill him is insulting and suggests some justification for his murder. Calling Tiller "controversial" blames the victim. In subsequent posts to its website, NewsBusters would go on to fault the media for "do[ing] nothing to help their audience understand why [Tiller] was targeted."
Following Tiller's murder, Media Matters unearthed video of a Bill O'Reilly producer's 2007 ambush interview of Tiller and 2006 "confrontation" with Tiller's attorney. Additionally, Media Matters posted a 2006 rant from O'Reilly's radio show, in which the Fox News host said, "[I]f I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
Salon.com's Gabriel Winant wrote regarding O'Reilly that there was "no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on 'The Factor' on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' "
Responding to the widespread criticism, O'Reilly falsely claimed he had only "reported what groups" were calling Tiller. Reading an email from a viewer who asked, "Mr. O'Reilly, how can you be sure that reciting 'Tiller the baby killer' over and over again did not inflame the assassin?" O'Reilly responded, "The doctor was involved in a criminal case. I reported what groups were calling him. I reported accurately." In fact, O'Reilly has not only "reported" on the term's usage by "pro-life groups," but also repeatedly referred to Tiller as "the baby killer" himself. To put a finer point on the criticism, during a June 2 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Patricia Ireland caught O'Reilly red-handed referring to Tiller as "Dr. Killer."
Fanning the flames further, O'Reilly referred to his critics as "pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters" who "attempt[ed] to blame us" for Tiller's murder. He also hosted a panel of anti-choice guests asking whether "the far left is exploiting this, trying to shut guys like me up."
BREAKING NEWS: Michael Savage tells the truth!
Well, for about a third of a sentence, anyway. Still, it's a start. Here's right-wing radio host Michael 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, the third-highest-rated radio host in America, so upset this time? He thinks Media Matters is responsible for his being banned from the United Kingdom.
Savage is 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.
Previously:
Savage claims Media Matters is "trying to get me killed"
Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Is Fox News making money off of its Al Gore lies?
On Thursday, Fox News began promoting a segment on "Gore's green money" for The O'Reilly Factor, asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"
Given The O'Reilly Factor's track record on the subject, one could guess what to expect from the teased segment.
Just last month, while guest-hosting the Factor, Laura Ingraham said: "It seems that being green does pay big time -- just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he's now reportedly -- get this -- worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing."
Ingraham then aired clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a nonprofit organization.
So, how did the Factor's latest segment on Gore's "tons of cash" turn out?
True to form, O'Reilly smeared the former vice president by stating that Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, while Fox's Megyn Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony Gore gave to suggest that he had lied when he said otherwise.
In order to prove their point, the conservative media have routinely cropped Obama's statements, including his honest assessment of U.S. failures under the Bush administration while excluding his critiques of other nations. This gave rise to the "apology tour" theme that Fox News pushed heavily during Obama's trip to Europe in April. That theme was rekindled this week as Fox's Sean Hannity aired an Obama "apology tour" video montage, while Fox & Friends asked if Obama would continue his "'apology-looza'" in Saudi Arabia. This time, however, the theme had broader reach and was repeated by CNN's Lou Dobbs, as well as MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Ironically, the typically abysmal right-wing fringe radio host Neal Boortz defended the president, claiming that he "didn't see any apologia, show of weakness" in Obama's Cairo speech.
When Fox's Steve Doocy claimed that "some" commentators have referred to the trip "as President Obama's Muslim apology tour" (by "some," he apparently meant "Steve Doocy"), he found a way to link the right-wing belief that honesty equals weakness with conservatives' deathly fear of the world's largest religion, Islam, practiced peacefully by well over 1 billion people around the world, as well as millions here in America. Commentator Joe Pagliarulo joined in the fun while guest-hosting Glenn Beck's radio program. Channeling his inner 11th-grade thug, Pagliarulo showed stunning ignorance when he stated that instead of reaching out to Muslims, Obama should have said what he claimed Ronald Reagan would have: "Hey, screw you. We're big and bad, and we are the promoters of peace and independence and liberty around the world. Either get with us or you can go on hating us and we'll enjoy life and you'll live in your cave." And during a discussion of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the always-sage Ann Coulter made perfectly clear just who the far right thinks Obama was talking to this week, claiming, "Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful." No wonder, then, that the purportedly bias-free Fox Nation website felt compelled to warn its readers that "Obama Says U.S. Is a 'Muslim Country.' "
Classic right-wing fearmongering was on constant display this week, as Fox News' Dick Morris warned of an impending Holocaust, Hannity claimed that Obama had given Iran the "go-ahead" to build nuclear weapons, Rush Limbaugh stated that Obama is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, and radio talker Lee Rodgers held out the specter of a "few million dead Americans" finally proving that we are all under the thumb of an "anti-American president."
Rodgers really hit the nail on the head for the right, returning to the central theme of its argument over the past 18 months: The U.S.-born, Hawaii-raised, former senator from Illinois just isn't one of us. While CNN's Candy Crowley implied that the Obama administration wasn't a "stalwart defender" of Israel, numerous conservative media figures did whatever they could to prove that the president is taking orders from Riyadh, all while he is continuing his campaign to sublimate American sovereignty to the United Nations and turn America into a socialist/fascist nightmare.
It was fine with the right when President Bush held hands with the Saudi king as they walked through his palace, but ever since Obama politely bowed to the monarch, the right has been foaming at the mouth. The fixation with Obama and the king continued this week, as Fox's Gretchen Carlson and Doocy cited their initial interaction as the "most important moment" of their meeting. While CNN questioned whether shouts of admiration during Obama's Cairo address would be taken poorly "at home," a blog post at The Weekly Standard asked conspiratorially if the president secretly spoke "the language of the Koran."
When Joe Scarborough declared Obama to be "perhaps the greatest challenge Osama bin Laden has faced" since 2001, he gave the week one of its only moments of sanity and perspective. Unfortunately, he stood alone, and it was Fox News' Martha MacCallum who embodied the remarkable and dangerous lack of thought among those in the right-wing media establishment when she asked why we would "have to reach out to the Muslim population" when "we were the ones attacked on September 11th."
Other major stories this week:
The murder of Dr. George Tiller
Dr. George Tiller, a doctor whose clinic legally performed late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Kansas church this past weekend. In 1985, Tiller's clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot by an anti-choice activist in both arms. Following news of his murder, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry released a statement saying in part: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God."
As Media Matters noted, on the February 2, 1992, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl reported: "While Terry insists he has never committed any violent acts himself, this footage, taped by the staff of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, shows him asking his followers to pray for either the salvation or the death of the clinic's doctor." 60 Minutes then aired video of Terry stating, "But pray that this family will either be converted to God or that calamity will strike him." Stahl added, "The doctor he's talking about is Warren Hern, who runs the clinic. He's been a major target of pro-life groups for years because he's one of only three doctors in the country who specialize in late-term abortions."
Coverage this week of the murder varied.
A report in USA Today falsely suggested that Tiller indiscriminately aborted viable fetuses. Its June 1 story reported that Tiller was a "controversial figure" whose clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable." But USA Today did not report that Kansas law permits the abortion of viable fetuses when the doctor performing the abortion and a second doctor agree that the "abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" or that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed -- physically or mentally -- by giving birth.
The right-wing media police at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog complained that media reports of Tiller's death failed to describe him as "controversial," even though several outlets described him just that way, including the previously mentioned USA Today article. To make its point that Tiller was in fact "controversial," NewsBusters cited a Kansas City Star "timeline of major events in George Tiller's career." The first entry in the timeline was the 1986 bombing of Tiller's clinic. The second was the 1991 blockade of his clinic by anti-choice protesters, leading to more than 2,500 arrests. The third was the 1993 shooting in which Tiller was hit in both arms. The fourth entry was a 1998 letter Tiller received threatening to contaminate his clinic with anthrax. The fifth was another illegal protest outside Tiller's clinic. The sixth and seventh were proceedings that found no wrongdoing by Tiller. And that was it; that's the whole list. Calling Tiller "controversial" just because conservative anti-choice terrorists tried to, and finally did, kill him is insulting and suggests some justification for his murder. Calling Tiller "controversial" blames the victim. In subsequent posts to its website, NewsBusters would go on to fault the media for "do[ing] nothing to help their audience understand why [Tiller] was targeted."
Following Tiller's murder, Media Matters unearthed video of a Bill O'Reilly producer's 2007 ambush interview of Tiller and 2006 "confrontation" with Tiller's attorney. Additionally, Media Matters posted a 2006 rant from O'Reilly's radio show, in which the Fox News host said, "[I]f I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
Salon.com's Gabriel Winant wrote regarding O'Reilly that there was "no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on 'The Factor' on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' "
Responding to the widespread criticism, O'Reilly falsely claimed he had only "reported what groups" were calling Tiller. Reading an email from a viewer who asked, "Mr. O'Reilly, how can you be sure that reciting 'Tiller the baby killer' over and over again did not inflame the assassin?" O'Reilly responded, "The doctor was involved in a criminal case. I reported what groups were calling him. I reported accurately." In fact, O'Reilly has not only "reported" on the term's usage by "pro-life groups," but also repeatedly referred to Tiller as "the baby killer" himself. To put a finer point on the criticism, during a June 2 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, Patricia Ireland caught O'Reilly red-handed referring to Tiller as "Dr. Killer."
Fanning the flames further, O'Reilly referred to his critics as "pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters" who "attempt[ed] to blame us" for Tiller's murder. He also hosted a panel of anti-choice guests asking whether "the far left is exploiting this, trying to shut guys like me up."
BREAKING NEWS: Michael Savage tells the truth!
Well, for about a third of a sentence, anyway. Still, it's a start. Here's right-wing radio host Michael 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, the third-highest-rated radio host in America, so upset this time? He thinks Media Matters is responsible for his being banned from the United Kingdom.
Savage is 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.
Previously:
Savage claims Media Matters is "trying to get me killed"
Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
Is Fox News making money off of its Al Gore lies?
On Thursday, Fox News began promoting a segment on "Gore's green money" for The O'Reilly Factor, asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"
Given The O'Reilly Factor's track record on the subject, one could guess what to expect from the teased segment.
Just last month, while guest-hosting the Factor, Laura Ingraham said: "It seems that being green does pay big time -- just ask Al Gore. Mr. Global Warming was worth about $2 million or so when he left office in 2001, but after eight years of tirelessly working to save the world, the planet, he's now reportedly -- get this -- worth a whopping $100 million. His financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing."
Ingraham then aired clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a nonprofit organization.
So, how did the Factor's latest segment on Gore's "tons of cash" turn out?
True to form, O'Reilly smeared the former vice president by stating that Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, while Fox's Megyn Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony Gore gave to suggest that he had lied when he said otherwise.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Cairo Speech N Y TIMES
When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we often — chillingly — felt as if we didn’t recognize the United States. His vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened to President Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we recognized the United States.
Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.
He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.
Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say those words in public. But words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has been in office for less than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision. So do others.
Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing Israel’s new government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”
In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians build strong state institutions.
We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.
On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.
Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure, America’s commitment will not weaken.
At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American troops withdraw.
The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear how Mr. Obama handled the issue of democracy — and its depressing scarcity in the Islamic world. He avoided President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not confront his host, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in the hall knew whom he was talking about (they applauded at key moments) when he said that governments must maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and that “elections alone do not make true democracy.” We hope he made those points directly when he met Mr. Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said. After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better.
Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.
He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.
Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say those words in public. But words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has been in office for less than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision. So do others.
Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing Israel’s new government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”
In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians build strong state institutions.
We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.
On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.
Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure, America’s commitment will not weaken.
At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American troops withdraw.
The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear how Mr. Obama handled the issue of democracy — and its depressing scarcity in the Islamic world. He avoided President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not confront his host, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in the hall knew whom he was talking about (they applauded at key moments) when he said that governments must maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and that “elections alone do not make true democracy.” We hope he made those points directly when he met Mr. Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said. After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better.
Obama plan would provide health care for all
AP By ERICA WERNER
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he's open to requiring all Americans to buy health insurance, as long as the plan provides a "hardship waiver" to exempt poor people from having to pay.
Obama opposed such an individual mandate during his campaign, but Congress increasingly is moving to embrace the idea.
In providing the first real details on how he wants to reshape the nation's health care system, the president urged Congress on Wednesday toward a sweeping overhaul that would allow Americans to buy into a government insurance plan.
Obama outlined his goals in a letter to Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairmen of the two committees writing health care bills. It followed a meeting he held Tuesday with members of their committees, and amounted to a road map to keep Congress aligned with his goals.
"The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, while seeing their costs lowered as our reforms take hold," Obama wrote.
Obama has asked the House and Senate each to finish legislation by early August, so that the two chambers can combine their bills in time for him to sign a single, sweeping measure in October. In a statement Baucus welcomed the assignment.
"I will stop at nothing to deliver a health reform bill that works for families and businesses to the president this year," Baucus said.
Covering 50 million uninsured Americans could cost as much as $1.5 trillion over a decade, and cost is emerging as a major sticking point. Obama didn't offer new solutions to that problem in his letter Wednesday but did say he'd like to squeeze an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over 10 years from the Medicare and Medicaid government insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and poor.
He said he'd do it through such measures as better managing chronic diseases and avoiding unnecessary tests and hospital readmissions. Savings from such measures are uncertain.
Medicare benefits cost the federal government about $450 billion a year and Medicaid about $200 billion. Obama already has targeted the programs for some $300 billion in cuts over 10 years in the 2010 budget he released in February.
He also said he's open to congressional proposals to let an independent commission identify cuts to Medicare which would take effect unless Congress rejected them all at once, similar to how military base closures are handled.
The president said he supports a new health insurance exchange that Congress is crafting, a sort of marketplace that would allow Americans to shop for different plans and compare prices.
All of the plans should offer a basic affordable package, and none should be allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, Obama said — big changes from how private insurance companies operate today.
"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," Obama wrote, weighing in firmly on one of the most controversial issues in the debate. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest."
Republicans strongly oppose a public plan, as do private insurers, who contend it would drive them out of business.
"A government-run plan would set artificially low prices that private insurers would have no way of competing with," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday on the Senate floor.
The idea of what Obama called a "hardship waiver" for individual Americans too poor to buy care splits the difference between where he was during the presidential campaign and where Congress appears to be heading.
In the campaign, Obama did not support requiring everyone to buy insurance, putting him at odds with then Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton. Congress is looking at doing so. The hardship waiver idea is under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee, which also is considering giving tax credits to certain individuals so they can afford health care. Kennedy and House Democrats are looking at giving subsidies to the poor to help them buy coverage.
The letter didn't address the issue of taxing health care benefits. Obama opposed that during his campaign but Congress is now considering it, and Obama hasn't shut the door on it.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he's open to requiring all Americans to buy health insurance, as long as the plan provides a "hardship waiver" to exempt poor people from having to pay.
Obama opposed such an individual mandate during his campaign, but Congress increasingly is moving to embrace the idea.
In providing the first real details on how he wants to reshape the nation's health care system, the president urged Congress on Wednesday toward a sweeping overhaul that would allow Americans to buy into a government insurance plan.
Obama outlined his goals in a letter to Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairmen of the two committees writing health care bills. It followed a meeting he held Tuesday with members of their committees, and amounted to a road map to keep Congress aligned with his goals.
"The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, while seeing their costs lowered as our reforms take hold," Obama wrote.
Obama has asked the House and Senate each to finish legislation by early August, so that the two chambers can combine their bills in time for him to sign a single, sweeping measure in October. In a statement Baucus welcomed the assignment.
"I will stop at nothing to deliver a health reform bill that works for families and businesses to the president this year," Baucus said.
Covering 50 million uninsured Americans could cost as much as $1.5 trillion over a decade, and cost is emerging as a major sticking point. Obama didn't offer new solutions to that problem in his letter Wednesday but did say he'd like to squeeze an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over 10 years from the Medicare and Medicaid government insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and poor.
He said he'd do it through such measures as better managing chronic diseases and avoiding unnecessary tests and hospital readmissions. Savings from such measures are uncertain.
Medicare benefits cost the federal government about $450 billion a year and Medicaid about $200 billion. Obama already has targeted the programs for some $300 billion in cuts over 10 years in the 2010 budget he released in February.
He also said he's open to congressional proposals to let an independent commission identify cuts to Medicare which would take effect unless Congress rejected them all at once, similar to how military base closures are handled.
The president said he supports a new health insurance exchange that Congress is crafting, a sort of marketplace that would allow Americans to shop for different plans and compare prices.
All of the plans should offer a basic affordable package, and none should be allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, Obama said — big changes from how private insurance companies operate today.
"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," Obama wrote, weighing in firmly on one of the most controversial issues in the debate. "This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest."
Republicans strongly oppose a public plan, as do private insurers, who contend it would drive them out of business.
"A government-run plan would set artificially low prices that private insurers would have no way of competing with," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday on the Senate floor.
The idea of what Obama called a "hardship waiver" for individual Americans too poor to buy care splits the difference between where he was during the presidential campaign and where Congress appears to be heading.
In the campaign, Obama did not support requiring everyone to buy insurance, putting him at odds with then Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton. Congress is looking at doing so. The hardship waiver idea is under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee, which also is considering giving tax credits to certain individuals so they can afford health care. Kennedy and House Democrats are looking at giving subsidies to the poor to help them buy coverage.
The letter didn't address the issue of taxing health care benefits. Obama opposed that during his campaign but Congress is now considering it, and Obama hasn't shut the door on it.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Why I Turned Down O'Reilly
By Mary Alice Carr
The first time I appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," in 2004, I sat across from Bill O'Reilly in awkward silence while he shuffled papers and took notes.
Finally, he glanced up and acknowledged my existence. "Thank you for coming on," he said. "Most people don't have the guts."
I said, "Well, you are one of the most-watched new shows on cable."
He swiftly retorted, "The most-watched new show on cable TV."
Let's face it: Bill O'Reilly is not only aware of his power and his reach, he's damn proud of them.
So I went on his show, time and again, even though many other progressives discouraged me. I went because I know what O'Reilly knows: It's the most-watched show, and I thought it was imperative that his audience also hear our viewpoint.
I also know that when you have a bully pulpit, you need to be held accountable for what you preach.
O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.
You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.
O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.
That is why I made a personal pledge to no longer sit across from him after he called for people to converge on Tiller's clinic. I realized that appearing on the show with him would only legitimize his speech and that no good would come of my efforts.
So on Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.
O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to say that this tragic outcome was something about which he felt sorry. He didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."
I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?
But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?
The writer is vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York.
The first time I appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," in 2004, I sat across from Bill O'Reilly in awkward silence while he shuffled papers and took notes.
Finally, he glanced up and acknowledged my existence. "Thank you for coming on," he said. "Most people don't have the guts."
I said, "Well, you are one of the most-watched new shows on cable."
He swiftly retorted, "The most-watched new show on cable TV."
Let's face it: Bill O'Reilly is not only aware of his power and his reach, he's damn proud of them.
So I went on his show, time and again, even though many other progressives discouraged me. I went because I know what O'Reilly knows: It's the most-watched show, and I thought it was imperative that his audience also hear our viewpoint.
I also know that when you have a bully pulpit, you need to be held accountable for what you preach.
O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.
You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.
O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.
That is why I made a personal pledge to no longer sit across from him after he called for people to converge on Tiller's clinic. I realized that appearing on the show with him would only legitimize his speech and that no good would come of my efforts.
So on Tuesday morning, when an O'Reilly producer called and asked me to come on the show to "discuss the reasons why women have late-term abortions," I held fast to my pledge. I told his producer what I thought: that I had had that conversation on air with O'Reilly five years earlier and that he agreed with me at the time that the decision was between a woman and her doctor. That O'Reilly then went on to pretend we had never talked about it and continued condemning women and doctors. That the nation and those of us in the pro-choice community are reeling from the murder of a doctor who helped women. That we hold O'Reilly responsible for helping to create a climate in which hate was allowed to fester. That I refused to dignify his irresponsible behavior, not to mention his deplorable reaction to Tiller's shooting.
O'Reilly had the opportunity to apologize for his words, and he didn't. He had the opportunity to say that this tragic outcome was something about which he felt sorry. He didn't. When restraint and perspective were called for, he fanned the flames higher. In fact, on his June 1 "Talking Points," he played the martyr, saying his critics were seeking to stifle any criticism of "people like Tiller -- that and hating Fox News is the real agenda here." On his show the next day -- the show I declined to appear on -- he again called a murdered man "Dr. Killer."
I admit that after the call from the producer, I hesitated. What an opportunity, I thought, to sit across from O'Reilly and call him out for what he has done and where his responsibility lies. To speak for everyone in America who is hurt and scared and angry. I have never been a Fox News hater; clearly, I've used the show for the benefit of my movement and my organization, and I've answered his questions on some of the toughest issues around. Didn't I have the right to also call him out for his speech?
But then I realized I just couldn't. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn't enough to make Bill O'Reilly repent, what hope did I have?
The writer is vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Obama on Obama
NY TIMES By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
During a telephone interview Tuesday with President Obama about his speech to Arabs and Muslims in Cairo on Thursday, I got to tell the president my favorite Middle East joke. It gave him a good laugh. It goes like this:
There is this very pious Jew named Goldberg who always dreamed of winning the lottery. Every Sabbath, he’d go to synagogue and pray: “God, I have been such a pious Jew all my life. What would be so bad if I won the lottery?” But the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Week after week, Goldberg would pray to win the lottery, but the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Finally, one Sabbath, Goldberg wails to the heavens and says: “God, I have been so pious for so long, what do I have to do to win the lottery?”
And the heavens parted and the voice of God came down: “Goldberg, give me a chance! Buy a ticket!”
I told the president that joke because in reading the Arab and Israeli press this week, everyone seemed to be telling him what he needed to do and say in Cairo, but nobody was indicating how they were going to step up and do something different. Everyone wants peace, but nobody wants to buy a ticket.
“We have a joke around the White House,” the president said. “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working — and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.”
A key part of his message, he said, will be: “Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” He then explained: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.” There are a lot of Israelis, “who recognize that their current path is unsustainable, and they need to make some tough choices on settlements to achieve a two-state solution — that is in their long-term interest — but not enough folks are willing to recognize that publicly.”
There are a lot of Palestinians who “recognize that the constant incitement and negative rhetoric with respect to Israel” has not delivered a single “benefit to their people and had they taken a more constructive approach and sought the moral high ground” they would be much better off today — but they won’t say it aloud.
“There are a lot of Arab states that have not been particularly helpful to the Palestinian cause beyond a bunch of demagoguery,” and when it comes to “ponying up” money to actually help the Palestinian people, they are “not forthcoming.”
When it comes to dealing with the Middle East, the president noted, “there is a Kabuki dance going on constantly. That is what I would like to see broken down. I am going to be holding up a mirror and saying: ‘Here is the situation, and the U.S. is prepared to work with all of you to deal with these problems. But we can’t impose a solution. You are all going to have to make some tough decisions.’ Leaders have to lead, and, hopefully, they will get supported by their people.”
It was clear from the 20-minute conversation that the president has no illusions that one speech will make lambs lie down with lions. Rather, he sees it as part of his broader diplomatic approach that says: If you go right into peoples’ living rooms, don’t be afraid to hold up a mirror to everything they are doing, but also engage them in a way that says ‘I know and respect who you are.’ You end up — if nothing else — creating a little more space for U.S. diplomacy. And you never know when that can help.
“As somebody who ordered an additional 17,000 troops into Afghanistan,” said Mr. Obama, “you would be hard pressed to suggest that what we are doing is not backed up by hard power. I discount a lot of that criticism. What I do believe is that if we are engaged in speaking directly to the Arab street, and they are persuaded that we are operating in a straightforward manner, then, at the margins, both they and their leadership are more inclined and able to work with us.”
Similarly, the president said that if he is asking German or French leaders to help more in Afghanistan or Pakistan, “it doesn’t hurt if I have credibility with the German and French people. They will still be constrained with budgets and internal politics, but it makes it easier.”
Part of America’s “battle against terrorist extremists involves changing the hearts and minds of the people they recruit from,” he added. “And if there are a bunch of 22- and 25-year-old men and women in Cairo or in Lahore who listen to a speech by me or other Americans and say: ‘I don’t agree with everything they are saying, but they seem to know who I am or they seem to want to promote economic development or tolerance or inclusiveness,’ then they are maybe a little less likely to be tempted by a terrorist recruiter.”
I think that’s right. An Egyptian friend remarked to me: Do not underestimate what seeds can get planted when American leaders don’t just propagate their values, but visibly live them. Mr. Obama will be speaking at Cairo University. When young Arabs and Muslims see an American president who looks like them, has a name like theirs, has Muslims in his family and comes into their world and speaks the truth, it will be empowering and disturbing at the same time. People will be asking: “Why is this guy who looks like everyone on the street here the head of the free world and we can’t even touch freedom?” You never know where that goes.
During a telephone interview Tuesday with President Obama about his speech to Arabs and Muslims in Cairo on Thursday, I got to tell the president my favorite Middle East joke. It gave him a good laugh. It goes like this:
There is this very pious Jew named Goldberg who always dreamed of winning the lottery. Every Sabbath, he’d go to synagogue and pray: “God, I have been such a pious Jew all my life. What would be so bad if I won the lottery?” But the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Week after week, Goldberg would pray to win the lottery, but the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Finally, one Sabbath, Goldberg wails to the heavens and says: “God, I have been so pious for so long, what do I have to do to win the lottery?”
And the heavens parted and the voice of God came down: “Goldberg, give me a chance! Buy a ticket!”
I told the president that joke because in reading the Arab and Israeli press this week, everyone seemed to be telling him what he needed to do and say in Cairo, but nobody was indicating how they were going to step up and do something different. Everyone wants peace, but nobody wants to buy a ticket.
“We have a joke around the White House,” the president said. “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working — and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.”
A key part of his message, he said, will be: “Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” He then explained: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.” There are a lot of Israelis, “who recognize that their current path is unsustainable, and they need to make some tough choices on settlements to achieve a two-state solution — that is in their long-term interest — but not enough folks are willing to recognize that publicly.”
There are a lot of Palestinians who “recognize that the constant incitement and negative rhetoric with respect to Israel” has not delivered a single “benefit to their people and had they taken a more constructive approach and sought the moral high ground” they would be much better off today — but they won’t say it aloud.
“There are a lot of Arab states that have not been particularly helpful to the Palestinian cause beyond a bunch of demagoguery,” and when it comes to “ponying up” money to actually help the Palestinian people, they are “not forthcoming.”
When it comes to dealing with the Middle East, the president noted, “there is a Kabuki dance going on constantly. That is what I would like to see broken down. I am going to be holding up a mirror and saying: ‘Here is the situation, and the U.S. is prepared to work with all of you to deal with these problems. But we can’t impose a solution. You are all going to have to make some tough decisions.’ Leaders have to lead, and, hopefully, they will get supported by their people.”
It was clear from the 20-minute conversation that the president has no illusions that one speech will make lambs lie down with lions. Rather, he sees it as part of his broader diplomatic approach that says: If you go right into peoples’ living rooms, don’t be afraid to hold up a mirror to everything they are doing, but also engage them in a way that says ‘I know and respect who you are.’ You end up — if nothing else — creating a little more space for U.S. diplomacy. And you never know when that can help.
“As somebody who ordered an additional 17,000 troops into Afghanistan,” said Mr. Obama, “you would be hard pressed to suggest that what we are doing is not backed up by hard power. I discount a lot of that criticism. What I do believe is that if we are engaged in speaking directly to the Arab street, and they are persuaded that we are operating in a straightforward manner, then, at the margins, both they and their leadership are more inclined and able to work with us.”
Similarly, the president said that if he is asking German or French leaders to help more in Afghanistan or Pakistan, “it doesn’t hurt if I have credibility with the German and French people. They will still be constrained with budgets and internal politics, but it makes it easier.”
Part of America’s “battle against terrorist extremists involves changing the hearts and minds of the people they recruit from,” he added. “And if there are a bunch of 22- and 25-year-old men and women in Cairo or in Lahore who listen to a speech by me or other Americans and say: ‘I don’t agree with everything they are saying, but they seem to know who I am or they seem to want to promote economic development or tolerance or inclusiveness,’ then they are maybe a little less likely to be tempted by a terrorist recruiter.”
I think that’s right. An Egyptian friend remarked to me: Do not underestimate what seeds can get planted when American leaders don’t just propagate their values, but visibly live them. Mr. Obama will be speaking at Cairo University. When young Arabs and Muslims see an American president who looks like them, has a name like theirs, has Muslims in his family and comes into their world and speaks the truth, it will be empowering and disturbing at the same time. People will be asking: “Why is this guy who looks like everyone on the street here the head of the free world and we can’t even touch freedom?” You never know where that goes.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Who Is to Blame for the Next Attack? FRANK RICH
AFTER watching the farce surrounding Dick Cheney’s coming-out party this month, you have to wonder: Which will reach Washington first, change or the terrorists? If change doesn’t arrive soon, terrorists may well rush in where the capital’s fools now tread.
The Beltway antics that greeted the great Cheney-Obama torture debate were an unsettling return to the post-9/11 dynamic that landed America in Iraq. Once again Cheney and his cohort were using lies and fear to try to gain political advantage — this time to rewrite history and escape accountability for the failed Bush presidency rather than to drum up a new war. Once again Democrats in Congress were cowed. And once again too much of the so-called liberal news media parroted the right’s scare tactics, putting America’s real security interests at risk by failing to challenge any Washington politician carrying a big stick.
Cheney’s “no middle ground” speech on torture at the American Enterprise Institute arrived with the kind of orchestrated media campaign that he, his boss and Karl Rove patented in the good old days. It was bookended by a pair of Republican attack ads on the Web that crosscut President Obama’s planned closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center with apocalyptic imagery — graphic video of the burning twin towers in one ad, a roar of nuclear holocaust (borrowed from the L.B.J. “daisy” ad of 1964) in the other.
The speech itself, with 20 mentions of 9/11, struck the same cynical note as the ads, as if the G.O.P. was almost rooting for a terrorist attack on Obama’s watch. “No one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do,” Cheney said as a disingenuous disclaimer before going on to charge that Obama’s “half measures” were leaving Americans “half exposed.” The new president, he said, is unraveling “the very policies that kept our people safe since 9/11.” In other words, when the next attack comes, it will be all Obama’s fault. A new ad shouting “We told you so!” awaits only the updated video.
The Republicans at least have an excuse for pushing this poison. They are desperate. The trio of Pillsbury doughboys now leading the party — Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Cheney — have variously cemented the G.O.P.’s brand as a whites-only men’s club by revoking Colin Powell’s membership and smearing the first Latina Supreme Court nominee as a “reverse racist.” Republicans in Congress have no plausible economic, health care or energy policies to counter Obama’s. The only card left to play is 9/11.
Yet even before Cheney spoke, Congressional Democrats were quaking in fear, purporting with straight faces that the transfer of detainees to “supermax” American prisons constituted a serious security threat. Many of the same senators who signed on to the Iraq war resolution in the fall of 2002 joined the 90-to-6 majority that put a hold on Obama’s Gitmo closure plans.
The déjà vu in the news media was more chilling. Rather than vet the substance of Cheney’s fulmination, talking heads instead hyped the split-screen “dueling speeches” gimmick of the back-to-back Obama-Cheney scheduling. Time magazine’s political Web site Photoshopped Cheney and Obama’s faces atop prize fighters’ bodies.
Most of the punditocracy scored the fight on a curve, setting up a false equivalence between the men’s ideas. Cheney’s pugnacious certitude edged out Obama’s law-professor nuance. “On policy grounds, you’ve got a real legitimate fight here,” David Gregory insisted on “Meet the Press” as he regurgitated the former vice president’s argument (“You can’t compromise on these matters”) and questioned whether the president could “really bring” his brand of pragmatism “to the issue of the war on terror.”
One New York Daily News columnist summed up Cheney’s supposed TKO this way: “The key to Cheney’s powerful performance: facts, facts, facts.” But the facts, as usual, were wrong.
At the McClatchy newspapers’ Washington bureau, the reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel detailed 10 whoppers. With selective quotations, Cheney falsified the views of the director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, on the supposed intelligence value of waterboarding. Equally bogus was Cheney’s boast that his administration had “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” In truth, the Bush administration had lost Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, not least because it started diverting huge assets to Iraq before accomplishing the mission of vanquishing Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That decision makes us less safe to this very minute.
You can find a link to the complete Landay-Strobel accounting of Cheney’s errors in the online version of this column. The failure of much of the press to match their effort has a troubling historical antecedent. These are the same two journalists who, reporting for what was then Knight Ridder, uncovered much of the deceit in the Bush-Cheney case for the Iraq war in the crucial weeks before Congress gave the invasion the green light.
On Sept. 6, 2002, Landay and Strobel reported that there was no known new intelligence indicating that “the Iraqis have made significant advances in their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs.” It was two days later that The Times ran its now notorious front-page account of Saddam Hussein’s “quest for thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes.” In the months that followed, as the Bush White House kept beating the drum for Saddam’s imminent mushroom clouds to little challenge from most news organizations, Landay and Strobel reported on the “lack of hard evidence” of Iraqi weapons and the infighting among intelligence agencies. Their scoops were largely ignored by the big papers and networks as America hurtled toward fiasco.
Another reporter who was ahead of the pack in unmasking Bush-Cheney propaganda is the author Ron Suskind. In his 2006 book on the American intelligence matrix, “The One Percent Doctrine,” Suskind wrote about a fully operational and potentially catastrophic post-9/11 Qaeda assault on America that actually was aborted in the Bush years: a hydrogen cyanide attack planned for the New York City subways. It was halted 45 days before zero hour — but not because we stopped it. Al-Zawahri had called it off.
When Bush and Cheney learned of the cancellation later on from conventional intelligence, they were baffled as to why. The answer: Al-Zawahri had decided that a rush-hour New York subway attack was not enough of an encore to top 9/11. Al Qaeda’s “special event” strategy, Suskind wrote, requires the creation of “an upward arc of rising and terrible expectation” that is “multiplied by time passing.” The event that fits that bill after 9/11 must involve some kind of nuclear weapon.
“What are the lessons of this period?” Suskind asked when we spoke last week. “If you draw the wrong lessons, you end up embracing the wrong answers.” They are certainly not the lessons cited by Cheney. Waterboarding hasn’t and isn’t going to save us from anything. The ticking time-bomb debate rekindled by Cheney’s speech may be entertaining on “24” or cable-news food fights, but is a detour from the actual perils before the country. “What we’re dealing with is a patient foe who thinks in decades while we tend to think more in news cycles,” Suskind said. “We have to try to wrestle this fear-based debate into something resembling a reality-based discussion.”
The reality is that while the Bush administration was bogged down in Iraq and being played by Pervez Musharraf, the likelihood of Qaeda gaining access to nuclear weapons in a Taliban-saturated Pakistan was increasing by the day. We know that in the month before 9/11, bin Laden and al-Zawahri met with the Pakistani nuclear scientist Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood. That was the real link between 9/11 and nuclear terror that the Bush administration let metastasize while it squandered American resources on a fictional link between 9/11 and a “nuclear” Saddam.
And where are we now? On the eve of Obama’s inauguration, David Sanger reported in The Times that military and nuclear experts agree that if “a real-life crisis” breaks out in Pakistan “it is unlikely that anyone would be able to assure an American president, with confidence, that he knew where all of Pakistan’s weapons were — or that none were in the hands of Islamic extremists.”
Pakistan is the time bomb. But with a push from Cheney, abetted by too many Democrats and too many compliant journalists, we have been distracted into drawing the wrong lessons, embracing the wrong answers. We are even wasting time worrying that detainees might escape from tomb-sized concrete cells in Colorado.
What we need to be doing instead, as Suskind put it, is to “build the thing we don’t have — human intelligence. We need people who are cooperating with us, who step up and help, and who won’t turn away when they see things happening. Hearts and minds — which we’ve botched — must be corrected and corrected quickly. That’s what wins the battle, not going medieval.” It’s not for nothing, after all, that Powell, Gen. David Petraeus and Robert Gates, the secretary of defense — among other military minds — agree with Obama, not Cheney, about torture and Gitmo.
The harrowing truth remains unchanged from what it was before Cheney emerged from his bunker to set Washington atwitter. The Bush administration did not make us safer either before or after 9/11. Obama is not making us less safe. If there’s another terrorist attack, it will be because the mess the Bush administration ignored in Pakistan and Afghanistan spun beyond anyone’s control well before Americans could throw the bums out.
The Beltway antics that greeted the great Cheney-Obama torture debate were an unsettling return to the post-9/11 dynamic that landed America in Iraq. Once again Cheney and his cohort were using lies and fear to try to gain political advantage — this time to rewrite history and escape accountability for the failed Bush presidency rather than to drum up a new war. Once again Democrats in Congress were cowed. And once again too much of the so-called liberal news media parroted the right’s scare tactics, putting America’s real security interests at risk by failing to challenge any Washington politician carrying a big stick.
Cheney’s “no middle ground” speech on torture at the American Enterprise Institute arrived with the kind of orchestrated media campaign that he, his boss and Karl Rove patented in the good old days. It was bookended by a pair of Republican attack ads on the Web that crosscut President Obama’s planned closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center with apocalyptic imagery — graphic video of the burning twin towers in one ad, a roar of nuclear holocaust (borrowed from the L.B.J. “daisy” ad of 1964) in the other.
The speech itself, with 20 mentions of 9/11, struck the same cynical note as the ads, as if the G.O.P. was almost rooting for a terrorist attack on Obama’s watch. “No one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do,” Cheney said as a disingenuous disclaimer before going on to charge that Obama’s “half measures” were leaving Americans “half exposed.” The new president, he said, is unraveling “the very policies that kept our people safe since 9/11.” In other words, when the next attack comes, it will be all Obama’s fault. A new ad shouting “We told you so!” awaits only the updated video.
The Republicans at least have an excuse for pushing this poison. They are desperate. The trio of Pillsbury doughboys now leading the party — Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Cheney — have variously cemented the G.O.P.’s brand as a whites-only men’s club by revoking Colin Powell’s membership and smearing the first Latina Supreme Court nominee as a “reverse racist.” Republicans in Congress have no plausible economic, health care or energy policies to counter Obama’s. The only card left to play is 9/11.
Yet even before Cheney spoke, Congressional Democrats were quaking in fear, purporting with straight faces that the transfer of detainees to “supermax” American prisons constituted a serious security threat. Many of the same senators who signed on to the Iraq war resolution in the fall of 2002 joined the 90-to-6 majority that put a hold on Obama’s Gitmo closure plans.
The déjà vu in the news media was more chilling. Rather than vet the substance of Cheney’s fulmination, talking heads instead hyped the split-screen “dueling speeches” gimmick of the back-to-back Obama-Cheney scheduling. Time magazine’s political Web site Photoshopped Cheney and Obama’s faces atop prize fighters’ bodies.
Most of the punditocracy scored the fight on a curve, setting up a false equivalence between the men’s ideas. Cheney’s pugnacious certitude edged out Obama’s law-professor nuance. “On policy grounds, you’ve got a real legitimate fight here,” David Gregory insisted on “Meet the Press” as he regurgitated the former vice president’s argument (“You can’t compromise on these matters”) and questioned whether the president could “really bring” his brand of pragmatism “to the issue of the war on terror.”
One New York Daily News columnist summed up Cheney’s supposed TKO this way: “The key to Cheney’s powerful performance: facts, facts, facts.” But the facts, as usual, were wrong.
At the McClatchy newspapers’ Washington bureau, the reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel detailed 10 whoppers. With selective quotations, Cheney falsified the views of the director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, on the supposed intelligence value of waterboarding. Equally bogus was Cheney’s boast that his administration had “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” In truth, the Bush administration had lost Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, not least because it started diverting huge assets to Iraq before accomplishing the mission of vanquishing Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That decision makes us less safe to this very minute.
You can find a link to the complete Landay-Strobel accounting of Cheney’s errors in the online version of this column. The failure of much of the press to match their effort has a troubling historical antecedent. These are the same two journalists who, reporting for what was then Knight Ridder, uncovered much of the deceit in the Bush-Cheney case for the Iraq war in the crucial weeks before Congress gave the invasion the green light.
On Sept. 6, 2002, Landay and Strobel reported that there was no known new intelligence indicating that “the Iraqis have made significant advances in their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons programs.” It was two days later that The Times ran its now notorious front-page account of Saddam Hussein’s “quest for thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes.” In the months that followed, as the Bush White House kept beating the drum for Saddam’s imminent mushroom clouds to little challenge from most news organizations, Landay and Strobel reported on the “lack of hard evidence” of Iraqi weapons and the infighting among intelligence agencies. Their scoops were largely ignored by the big papers and networks as America hurtled toward fiasco.
Another reporter who was ahead of the pack in unmasking Bush-Cheney propaganda is the author Ron Suskind. In his 2006 book on the American intelligence matrix, “The One Percent Doctrine,” Suskind wrote about a fully operational and potentially catastrophic post-9/11 Qaeda assault on America that actually was aborted in the Bush years: a hydrogen cyanide attack planned for the New York City subways. It was halted 45 days before zero hour — but not because we stopped it. Al-Zawahri had called it off.
When Bush and Cheney learned of the cancellation later on from conventional intelligence, they were baffled as to why. The answer: Al-Zawahri had decided that a rush-hour New York subway attack was not enough of an encore to top 9/11. Al Qaeda’s “special event” strategy, Suskind wrote, requires the creation of “an upward arc of rising and terrible expectation” that is “multiplied by time passing.” The event that fits that bill after 9/11 must involve some kind of nuclear weapon.
“What are the lessons of this period?” Suskind asked when we spoke last week. “If you draw the wrong lessons, you end up embracing the wrong answers.” They are certainly not the lessons cited by Cheney. Waterboarding hasn’t and isn’t going to save us from anything. The ticking time-bomb debate rekindled by Cheney’s speech may be entertaining on “24” or cable-news food fights, but is a detour from the actual perils before the country. “What we’re dealing with is a patient foe who thinks in decades while we tend to think more in news cycles,” Suskind said. “We have to try to wrestle this fear-based debate into something resembling a reality-based discussion.”
The reality is that while the Bush administration was bogged down in Iraq and being played by Pervez Musharraf, the likelihood of Qaeda gaining access to nuclear weapons in a Taliban-saturated Pakistan was increasing by the day. We know that in the month before 9/11, bin Laden and al-Zawahri met with the Pakistani nuclear scientist Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood. That was the real link between 9/11 and nuclear terror that the Bush administration let metastasize while it squandered American resources on a fictional link between 9/11 and a “nuclear” Saddam.
And where are we now? On the eve of Obama’s inauguration, David Sanger reported in The Times that military and nuclear experts agree that if “a real-life crisis” breaks out in Pakistan “it is unlikely that anyone would be able to assure an American president, with confidence, that he knew where all of Pakistan’s weapons were — or that none were in the hands of Islamic extremists.”
Pakistan is the time bomb. But with a push from Cheney, abetted by too many Democrats and too many compliant journalists, we have been distracted into drawing the wrong lessons, embracing the wrong answers. We are even wasting time worrying that detainees might escape from tomb-sized concrete cells in Colorado.
What we need to be doing instead, as Suskind put it, is to “build the thing we don’t have — human intelligence. We need people who are cooperating with us, who step up and help, and who won’t turn away when they see things happening. Hearts and minds — which we’ve botched — must be corrected and corrected quickly. That’s what wins the battle, not going medieval.” It’s not for nothing, after all, that Powell, Gen. David Petraeus and Robert Gates, the secretary of defense — among other military minds — agree with Obama, not Cheney, about torture and Gitmo.
The harrowing truth remains unchanged from what it was before Cheney emerged from his bunker to set Washington atwitter. The Bush administration did not make us safer either before or after 9/11. Obama is not making us less safe. If there’s another terrorist attack, it will be because the mess the Bush administration ignored in Pakistan and Afghanistan spun beyond anyone’s control well before Americans could throw the bums out.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Suddenly it's OK to call a judicial nominee a racist
When the nation learned in 2005 that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had belonged to a Princeton University alumni organization that advocated a cap on the number of women and minorities allowed at Princeton, the news media quickly circled the wagons to protect the Bush nominee.
When Alito was asked by Senate Democrats about his membership in the organization -- which he touted while applying for a job in the Reagan administration -- the media denounced them for going too far. The merest hint of a suggestion of an implication that Alito was a member of a racist organization was shouted down as an unfair slander; Democrats were pilloried for making Alito's wife cry with their inappropriate questions (though Mrs. Alito didn't actually start crying until Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took to the microphone).
Gloria Borger, for example, said that the pertinent question was not whether Alito agreed with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton's clearly racist and sexist stance on university admissions, but "whether the Democrats took this a step too far today." Katie Couric added: "Too much to take: Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife driven to tears after Democrats question his integrity. Did they go too far?" The media consensus that Democrats went "too far" in questioning Alito continues to this day. Fox News' Megyn Kelly recently claimed that during Alito's confirmation hearings, his wife was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry."
So it seems the news media treat even a suggestion that a Supreme Court nominee might be guilty of involvement in a bigoted organization as a vile slur. Even if the nominee touted his membership in a group that sought to limit the number of women and minorities accepted into his alma mater. Even then, such questions are treated as inappropriate and abusive scrutiny that have no place in civil discourse.
As long, that is, as the nominee in question is a conservative white male, nominated by a conservative white male president.
But as we learned this week, if the nominee is a progressive Latina nominated by a progressive African-American president, you can just come right out and call her a racist -- based on nothing more than a distorted quote and a ruling nobody has read -- and the media will take you seriously. They will amplify your complaints. Far from denouncing you for going "too far," they will pretend that your false descriptions of her comments are accurate.
Eight years ago, Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that in judging cases involving discrimination, a Latina woman would reach a better decision than would a white man who hasn't had her experiences. Past Republican Supreme Court nominees like Samuel Alito have said similar things, and it really isn't particularly controversial.
But if you change what Sotomayor said a bit -- drop a word here and there, change a few others -- to pretend that she said Latinas are better than white men ... well, that's racist!
And that's just what the right wing did. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and other conservative media figures quickly insisted that Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot. They even compared her to David Duke. (Now, at first, you might think that if Rush Limbaugh is calling someone a racist, he must mean it as a compliment. But if you listen to his tone of voice and the full context, it's clear he means it as an insult.)
And the media, particularly cable news, took their complaints seriously. They quoted them, and they adopted the right's inaccurate shorthand version of Sotomayor's comments in order to explain why the conservatives were upset. News reports that explained that conservatives are distorting Sotomayor's comments were few and far between; reports that noted that conservatives have said similar things in the past were even rarer.
Just a few years ago, the mere suggestion that Samuel Alito should explain his membership in an organization that sought to limit the number of women and minorities at Princeton was met with outrage by the media. How dare the Democrats! They've gone too far! But now, with conservatives explicitly calling Sotomayor a "racist" based on manufactured evidence, the media can't even be bothered to point out that they are distorting her comments. Instead, the conservative complaints get taken seriously, as though they are a reasonable and fair interpretation of what Sotomayor said.
So it seems that lying about a Latina in order to call her a racist is just fine, as far as much of the media is concerned. Just don't you dare question why a white male belonged to an organization that sought to keep women and minorities out of his college. That's over the line.
When Alito was asked by Senate Democrats about his membership in the organization -- which he touted while applying for a job in the Reagan administration -- the media denounced them for going too far. The merest hint of a suggestion of an implication that Alito was a member of a racist organization was shouted down as an unfair slander; Democrats were pilloried for making Alito's wife cry with their inappropriate questions (though Mrs. Alito didn't actually start crying until Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took to the microphone).
Gloria Borger, for example, said that the pertinent question was not whether Alito agreed with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton's clearly racist and sexist stance on university admissions, but "whether the Democrats took this a step too far today." Katie Couric added: "Too much to take: Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife driven to tears after Democrats question his integrity. Did they go too far?" The media consensus that Democrats went "too far" in questioning Alito continues to this day. Fox News' Megyn Kelly recently claimed that during Alito's confirmation hearings, his wife was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry."
So it seems the news media treat even a suggestion that a Supreme Court nominee might be guilty of involvement in a bigoted organization as a vile slur. Even if the nominee touted his membership in a group that sought to limit the number of women and minorities accepted into his alma mater. Even then, such questions are treated as inappropriate and abusive scrutiny that have no place in civil discourse.
As long, that is, as the nominee in question is a conservative white male, nominated by a conservative white male president.
But as we learned this week, if the nominee is a progressive Latina nominated by a progressive African-American president, you can just come right out and call her a racist -- based on nothing more than a distorted quote and a ruling nobody has read -- and the media will take you seriously. They will amplify your complaints. Far from denouncing you for going "too far," they will pretend that your false descriptions of her comments are accurate.
Eight years ago, Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that in judging cases involving discrimination, a Latina woman would reach a better decision than would a white man who hasn't had her experiences. Past Republican Supreme Court nominees like Samuel Alito have said similar things, and it really isn't particularly controversial.
But if you change what Sotomayor said a bit -- drop a word here and there, change a few others -- to pretend that she said Latinas are better than white men ... well, that's racist!
And that's just what the right wing did. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and other conservative media figures quickly insisted that Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot. They even compared her to David Duke. (Now, at first, you might think that if Rush Limbaugh is calling someone a racist, he must mean it as a compliment. But if you listen to his tone of voice and the full context, it's clear he means it as an insult.)
And the media, particularly cable news, took their complaints seriously. They quoted them, and they adopted the right's inaccurate shorthand version of Sotomayor's comments in order to explain why the conservatives were upset. News reports that explained that conservatives are distorting Sotomayor's comments were few and far between; reports that noted that conservatives have said similar things in the past were even rarer.
Just a few years ago, the mere suggestion that Samuel Alito should explain his membership in an organization that sought to limit the number of women and minorities at Princeton was met with outrage by the media. How dare the Democrats! They've gone too far! But now, with conservatives explicitly calling Sotomayor a "racist" based on manufactured evidence, the media can't even be bothered to point out that they are distorting her comments. Instead, the conservative complaints get taken seriously, as though they are a reasonable and fair interpretation of what Sotomayor said.
So it seems that lying about a Latina in order to call her a racist is just fine, as far as much of the media is concerned. Just don't you dare question why a white male belonged to an organization that sought to keep women and minorities out of his college. That's over the line.
THE MAD MAD MAD MAD MEDIA??
On Tuesday morning, President Obama announced his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. In the four short days that followed, understandably, most of the media's attention has centered on the nominee, though much of that attention has been riddled with conservative misinformation.
Yesterday, Media Matters released a special report noting that in coverage of Obama's announcement, the media have advanced numerous myths and falsehoods about Sotomayor. In some cases, the media assert the falsehoods themselves; in others, they report unchallenged the claims of others.
The report suggests that in addition to evaluating these claims on their merits, the media should also consistently report that conservatives were reportedly very clear about their intentions to oppose Obama's nominee, no matter who it was. Their attacks must be assessed in the context of their reported plans to use the confirmation process to, among other things, "help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats."
As documented in the report, the myths that have emerged or resurfaced since Sotomayor's nomination was announced include:
Sotomayor advocated legislating from the bench
Sotomayor said, "Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges"
Sotomayor's Supreme Court reversal rate is "high"
Liberal judges like Sotomayor are "activist[s]"
Sotomayor was "[s]oft on New Jersey [c]orruption"
New Haven firefighters case shows Sotomayor is an "activist"
Sotomayor lacks the intellect to be an effective justice
Sotomayor is "domineering" and "a bit of a bully"
"Empathy" is code for "liberal activist"
Be sure to read the entire report for a detailed breakdown of the facts dispelling these right-wing myths and falsehoods.
In all, this week, Media Matters released more than 100 research items, blog posts, video clips, and columns surrounding media coverage of the Supreme Court and Sotomayor's nomination.
As the week went on, it became clearer that Sotomayor would be a victim of attacks from conservatives in the media reminiscent of those on Obama:
MSNBC's Pat Buchanan called Sotomayor a "lightweight," "an anti-white, liberal judicial activist." He and his sister Bay both claimed that Sotomayor's nomination was the result of "affirmative action."
Media Matters' Eric Boehlert went head-to-head with former Rep. Tom Tancredo on CNN over the context of Sotomayor's past comments. During the segment, Tancredo claimed Sotomayor was a member of the "Latino KKK," earning the right-wing former congressman the mocking of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
Jeffrey Kuhner, filling in for right-wing radio host Michael Savage, claimed Sotomayor believes "that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and misogynist society."
Fox News' Glenn Beck said Sotomayor's appointment was more evidence of a Marxist "hostile takeover" of the United States. He also called her a "racist," who "is not that bright" and "divisive."
Savage described Sotomayor as "Chairman O's pick for the Supreme Court" and a "radical activist."
Radio host and conservative movement leader Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor "an angry woman," "bigot," and "racist."
Mark Krikorian, over at the National Review Online, had an issue with the pronunciation of Sotomayor's name, writing that "it sticks in my craw."
Fox News' Sean Hannity claimed Obama turned "his back on Mainstream America" by nominating "the most divisive nominee possible," a "radical."
Politico's Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin initially reported that Sotomayor was "a Latina single mother" despite the fact that Sotomayor has no children.
If media coverage of week one of the Sotomayor nomination is any indication, it's going to be a long, hot summer. Fear not, though -- Media Matters will be there through it all.
Other major stories this week:
Is there something in the water at Fox Nation?
Back in March, while promoting its newly launched website, The link appears to be going to the domain TheFoxNation.com, but is really going to the domain mediamatters.org.
TheFoxNation.com, Fox News ran advertisements telling viewers that "[i]t's time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech." In the weeks since the website's launch, Media Matters has documented more than 50 instances where Fox Nation failed to come close to the bias-free, "fair play" standard set out by Fox News.
This week has been particularly awful. Case in point:
Fox Nation is just asking: "Sotomayor Argued Death Penalty Is Racist... Is She?"
With picture of burning WTC, Fox Nation wonders if Obama has "Pre-9/11 Mindset"
Fox Nation: "Need Another Tea Party? National Sales Tax 'on the Table' "
Fox Nation baselessly claims Sotomayor "Wants to Ban Guns"
Fox News still trafficking in birth certificate theories
Continuing to be "bias"-free, Fox Nation calls Obama "Cocky Barack"
Be sure to check out the Media Matters archive on Free Republic ... er, Fox Nation.
Rush Limbaugh's Failure-palooza
By now, everybody watching the Obama administration remembers Rush Limbaugh's well wishes for the new president the day before his inauguration -- that's when El Rushbo said, "I hope Obama fails." The comment picked up a head of steam in the press, provoking Limbaugh to elaborate two days later, saying, "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." A month later, Rush let us all in on "the dirty little secret," as he described it, that "every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it."
Since then, Rush has been quick to wish failure on all kinds of things. For example, back in February, Limbaugh said, "I want the stimulus package to fail." In March, he strangely compared his hope for Obama's failure to a Steelers fan wanting the Cardinals' QB to fail in the Super Bowl. The same month, he seemed to offer up some reverse psychology, claiming, "If there's anybody who wants America as it was founded to fail, it's Barack Obama."
And so, Rush Limbaugh's failure-palooza marched on this week as news of Obama's selection of Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court was reported. Without skipping a beat, Limbaugh said of the president's nominee: "Do I want her to fail? Yeah."
To give you an idea of how completely warped Rush's thinking is, two days after his Sotomayor "fail" comments, Limbaugh claimed, "This country is failing because President Obama is succeeding."
So, was it Sasquatch or Chupacabra driving the Chrysler?
Another week, another bizarre conspiracy theory from the right. Eric Boehlert brings us the story of the budding Obama scandal that's been hatched this week within the right-wing blogosphere, which has all the hallmarks of previous failed Obama conspiracy theories. The latest centers on the idea that Obama's White House, as part of the automaker's restructuring, personally selected which Chrysler dealership would be closed. Not only that, but the Obama White House punished dealerships whose owners gave campaign contributions to Republicans. The horror!
Conservative bloggers excitedly claim that their research proves a massive conspiracy's afoot. Their research? A laundry list of names of dealers who have indeed given money to the GOP and have indeed been closed down as part of the GM restructuring. So why doesn't that prove Obama has a hit list? First, because nearly 800 dealerships are being closed down, yet bloggers detail campaign contributions for less than 10 percent of those dealership owners. Second, all the bloggers actually prove is that a lot of dealership owners are Republicans. Does that surprise anyone?
Statistician Nate Silver demolishes the theory with actual research, noting, "It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party."
www.mediamatters.org
Yesterday, Media Matters released a special report noting that in coverage of Obama's announcement, the media have advanced numerous myths and falsehoods about Sotomayor. In some cases, the media assert the falsehoods themselves; in others, they report unchallenged the claims of others.
The report suggests that in addition to evaluating these claims on their merits, the media should also consistently report that conservatives were reportedly very clear about their intentions to oppose Obama's nominee, no matter who it was. Their attacks must be assessed in the context of their reported plans to use the confirmation process to, among other things, "help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats."
As documented in the report, the myths that have emerged or resurfaced since Sotomayor's nomination was announced include:
Sotomayor advocated legislating from the bench
Sotomayor said, "Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges"
Sotomayor's Supreme Court reversal rate is "high"
Liberal judges like Sotomayor are "activist[s]"
Sotomayor was "[s]oft on New Jersey [c]orruption"
New Haven firefighters case shows Sotomayor is an "activist"
Sotomayor lacks the intellect to be an effective justice
Sotomayor is "domineering" and "a bit of a bully"
"Empathy" is code for "liberal activist"
Be sure to read the entire report for a detailed breakdown of the facts dispelling these right-wing myths and falsehoods.
In all, this week, Media Matters released more than 100 research items, blog posts, video clips, and columns surrounding media coverage of the Supreme Court and Sotomayor's nomination.
As the week went on, it became clearer that Sotomayor would be a victim of attacks from conservatives in the media reminiscent of those on Obama:
MSNBC's Pat Buchanan called Sotomayor a "lightweight," "an anti-white, liberal judicial activist." He and his sister Bay both claimed that Sotomayor's nomination was the result of "affirmative action."
Media Matters' Eric Boehlert went head-to-head with former Rep. Tom Tancredo on CNN over the context of Sotomayor's past comments. During the segment, Tancredo claimed Sotomayor was a member of the "Latino KKK," earning the right-wing former congressman the mocking of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
Jeffrey Kuhner, filling in for right-wing radio host Michael Savage, claimed Sotomayor believes "that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and misogynist society."
Fox News' Glenn Beck said Sotomayor's appointment was more evidence of a Marxist "hostile takeover" of the United States. He also called her a "racist," who "is not that bright" and "divisive."
Savage described Sotomayor as "Chairman O's pick for the Supreme Court" and a "radical activist."
Radio host and conservative movement leader Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor "an angry woman," "bigot," and "racist."
Mark Krikorian, over at the National Review Online, had an issue with the pronunciation of Sotomayor's name, writing that "it sticks in my craw."
Fox News' Sean Hannity claimed Obama turned "his back on Mainstream America" by nominating "the most divisive nominee possible," a "radical."
Politico's Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin initially reported that Sotomayor was "a Latina single mother" despite the fact that Sotomayor has no children.
If media coverage of week one of the Sotomayor nomination is any indication, it's going to be a long, hot summer. Fear not, though -- Media Matters will be there through it all.
Other major stories this week:
Is there something in the water at Fox Nation?
Back in March, while promoting its newly launched website, The link appears to be going to the domain TheFoxNation.com, but is really going to the domain mediamatters.org.
TheFoxNation.com, Fox News ran advertisements telling viewers that "[i]t's time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech." In the weeks since the website's launch, Media Matters has documented more than 50 instances where Fox Nation failed to come close to the bias-free, "fair play" standard set out by Fox News.
This week has been particularly awful. Case in point:
Fox Nation is just asking: "Sotomayor Argued Death Penalty Is Racist... Is She?"
With picture of burning WTC, Fox Nation wonders if Obama has "Pre-9/11 Mindset"
Fox Nation: "Need Another Tea Party? National Sales Tax 'on the Table' "
Fox Nation baselessly claims Sotomayor "Wants to Ban Guns"
Fox News still trafficking in birth certificate theories
Continuing to be "bias"-free, Fox Nation calls Obama "Cocky Barack"
Be sure to check out the Media Matters archive on Free Republic ... er, Fox Nation.
Rush Limbaugh's Failure-palooza
By now, everybody watching the Obama administration remembers Rush Limbaugh's well wishes for the new president the day before his inauguration -- that's when El Rushbo said, "I hope Obama fails." The comment picked up a head of steam in the press, provoking Limbaugh to elaborate two days later, saying, "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." A month later, Rush let us all in on "the dirty little secret," as he described it, that "every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it."
Since then, Rush has been quick to wish failure on all kinds of things. For example, back in February, Limbaugh said, "I want the stimulus package to fail." In March, he strangely compared his hope for Obama's failure to a Steelers fan wanting the Cardinals' QB to fail in the Super Bowl. The same month, he seemed to offer up some reverse psychology, claiming, "If there's anybody who wants America as it was founded to fail, it's Barack Obama."
And so, Rush Limbaugh's failure-palooza marched on this week as news of Obama's selection of Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court was reported. Without skipping a beat, Limbaugh said of the president's nominee: "Do I want her to fail? Yeah."
To give you an idea of how completely warped Rush's thinking is, two days after his Sotomayor "fail" comments, Limbaugh claimed, "This country is failing because President Obama is succeeding."
So, was it Sasquatch or Chupacabra driving the Chrysler?
Another week, another bizarre conspiracy theory from the right. Eric Boehlert brings us the story of the budding Obama scandal that's been hatched this week within the right-wing blogosphere, which has all the hallmarks of previous failed Obama conspiracy theories. The latest centers on the idea that Obama's White House, as part of the automaker's restructuring, personally selected which Chrysler dealership would be closed. Not only that, but the Obama White House punished dealerships whose owners gave campaign contributions to Republicans. The horror!
Conservative bloggers excitedly claim that their research proves a massive conspiracy's afoot. Their research? A laundry list of names of dealers who have indeed given money to the GOP and have indeed been closed down as part of the GM restructuring. So why doesn't that prove Obama has a hit list? First, because nearly 800 dealerships are being closed down, yet bloggers detail campaign contributions for less than 10 percent of those dealership owners. Second, all the bloggers actually prove is that a lot of dealership owners are Republicans. Does that surprise anyone?
Statistician Nate Silver demolishes the theory with actual research, noting, "It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party."
www.mediamatters.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)