Mitt Romney Gets It. Wife Ann? Not So Much.

In a not so shocking first interview since his presidential election defeat, Mitt Rommney admitted that it's "killing him" not to be in the Oval Office. In a more than surprising admission, he blames his campaign (and I'm assuming himself) for not being able to connect with black and hispanic voters, and points to his "47 percent" debacle as the turning point of the race.

In a complete yawner, however (and who didn't see this coming), his wife Ann "I love you women" Romney is still in the dark and is perfectly willing to blame the media for her husband's rout, apparently unaware of the fact that a journalist's job is to report what her husband and his campaign say and do. Ann, being a one percenter, is so totally insulated from the real world, that it is unfathomable to her that the actions of her husband are what caused his downfall. It wasn't made up. It wasn't a lie. It happened.

Now, perhaps in the days before social media, a 24 hour cable news cycle and practically real time reporting through the Internet, a guy like Mitt Romney could have gotten away with some of his ridiculous gaffes and his real thoughts spoken in "private rooms" away from the media, but that's no longer the case. And someone who runs a 1950's style campaign in 2012 is going to suffer.

But Ann just doesn't get it because in her insular world, she can't see past the fences of her estate or the walls of her gated communities. To Ann, this was an unfair, epic takedown by the "librul" media of the only man who could possibly have the ability to run the country.

“It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. I’m happy to blame the media.”

See - Ann doesn't get that "who he really was" was the man that showed his real side through the gaffes and statemens made in private rooms when he thought the rest of the world wasn't listening. Mitt really does think corporations are people. Mitt really does think that 47 percent of the country were voting for President Obama because they're moochers looking for free stuff. Mitt really isn't concerned about the poor because of the safety net they have - the same safety net he would have dismantled given the chance. Mitt doesn't have a clue as to what the actual income is of more than 90% of the population, and how could he? He's just as isolated and insulated as Ann.  But Ann will never understand what the rest of the world understands when she pretends to shop at Costco and doesn't have to worry about filling up her gas tank. Or paying her mortgage. Or having a job.

Now that Romney has admitted what's eating him up inside, it's only a  matter of time before we find a World Weekly News headline on the ever reclusive Mitt Romney taking a Howard Hughes turn, complete with long beard, hair, gnarled fingernails and toenails, designing his own Air Force One made entirely out of wood.

Context, ladies

POSTED BY JHW22

OK, I've had a couple of days now where I accidentally watched Andrea Mitchell and only just saved my TV by putting heavy objects away before throwing them at her.

Today's "WHY THE FUCK AM I WATCHING THIS?!?!" moment was when Andrea and two other female journalists (I think Ruth Marcus and another gal whose name escapes me) were going ON AND ON about the Obama ad with Sarah Jessica Parker. You'd think the campaign broke some advertising 101 rule or something. You'd think the Obama campaign just ran an ad worse than the Daisy ad or the sheep with glowing eyes ad or the "I'm not a witch" ad (side note: that "I'm not a witch" ad STILL makes me think of "I'm not a witch, I'm your wife"). Anywho, Andrea and crew acted as if going the celebrity route was the horror of campaign ad horrors.

But just now, while watching Lawrence O'Donnell, I learned that the SJP ad was aired during... THE MTV MOVIE AWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone who worked in advertising, let me just say that the ad was great, for starters, because it encourages people to A) Donate B) Register at the Obama site and C) Stars a WOMAN that many WOMEN based years of their lives' schedules around. Genius. Now to learn it was aired to target the YOUTH VOTE, I want to find every object in my house and throw them at my TV posthumously for Andrea and ladies being so CLUELESS.

It was a GENIUS ad. A GENIUS ad buy. The only people who didn't "get" that? Three old white ladies who didn't watch MTV even when it HAD music.

The "Liberal" Media

Via Bob Cesca:



Must we continue to pretend that there is such a thing as a "liberal media" when the major markets are owned by corporations?

The Party of Hansel and Gretel

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE

Too many Democrats are like Hansel and Gretel following the bread crumbs strewn at their feet by the Republicans and mainstream media (MSM). What occurred the other day was a screw up over the date of President Obama’s speech. It was a blip on the radar, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe some White House staff person didn’t check the event calendar. Who knows? I’m pretty sure this type of mistake has happened many times before. However, the Republicans capitalized on this and chose to make it an “event” by publicly rebuking the President in an unprecedented show of disrespect, gamesmanship, and ugliness. They scattered their moldy bread crumbs around, and some on the Left gobbled them up. Rather than call out the Republicans in one loud, strong, unified voice, we castigated the victim, playing right into the Republicans’ hands. Oh, and where was the ubiquitous Congressional Black Caucus? One would think that people who have experienced the ugliness of racism would be denouncing Speaker Boehner. Their response was deafening silence as far as I can tell.

There was an outcry over this fiasco—an outcry denouncing President Obama, not the Republicans. Really, folks, is this the issue for which we wanted President Obama to fall on his sword? Let’s imagine the scenarios of the President fighting back: “Stop being mean to me.” Yep, that would have been effective. That would have been extra fuel for Republicans, and the incident would have lasted for weeks rather than days. Or how about “I’m going to give my speech anyway, and y’all better come hear it.” The House chamber would have echoed as the President’s words bounced off of the empty seats. But my all-time favorite from the Left was he should have given his speech from the Oval Office.

Well, after watching the speech, I would hope we all see why speaking to a joint session was so much more effective. The American people witnessed a spectacle that would have made DeMille happy. For crying out loud, Republicans did not even stand and applaud for the GI Bill for crying out loud. That moment will be burned into the minds of moderates and independents through November 2012.

Thank goodness Mr. Cool didn’t lose his cool like the Republicans and some Democrats. If he had, the attention wouldn’t have been on his speech. In fact, the atmosphere going into the speech would have been one of hijinks and goofiness. But instead the speech was preceded by seriousness and anticipation and the date kerfuffle tamped down. Too late for those on the Left because they had already followed the Republican crumbs right into the Right’s trap—again.

But it’s not only the right wing that drops crumbs for us to follow. Look what the media dropped for us over the past few days--$300 billion jobs bill. One of those chomping on those crumbs was Rep. Raul Grijalva, whining that $300 billion wasn’t enough. Nicole Sandler, subbing for radio host Randi Rhodes a couple of days before jobs speech, said she didn’t like what the President was going to say, an opinion based on media reports. She opposed any debt reduction proposal. (By the way, debt reduction means billions we pay on interest can go toward programs the Left cherish, but that’s another post.) Those two, like so many other Dems, were already criticizing the President’s job plan based on media reports before even hearing the speech.

Wasn’t the issue of black unemployment a media crumb? The Congressional Black Caucus went nuts over that issue recently but interestingly, not before it became the darling topic of MSM. Suddenly, the members of the CBC are all over the map literally denouncing Presodent Obama for low black unemployment. Yes, minority unemployment is an increasingly distressing issue and yes, when unemployment is down in general, it’s so much worse in minority communities. However, all of Obama’s policies and programs that deal with joblessness, hunger, health care also help minorities who suffer by a greater proportion.

They also blasted him for not going to Detroit, a city he has been to many, many times and whose policies have helped the city rebuild. But shouldn’t the constituents of Maxine Waters have answered her statement, “When you tell us to let go, we’ll let go” with “What have YOU done for us lately?” And now the media is accusing the President of never talking about housing. Really? Well, guess what? He does—a lot. In fact, he’s made it easier for home owners to get out from oppressive mortgages. The media just doesn’t pay attention. But I’m betting that will be the meme of the some on the Left soon. Where are the houses? Where are the houses?

While watching President Obama throw a fit and spew angry words may make us feel better, that behavior doesn’t move his agenda forward. And isn’t that what we’re really about? Helping others and our nation recover. If you want histrionics, you better look somewhere else other than this White House. However, if you want a President who moves his agenda steadily forward in spite of so many obstacles thrown in path by both the Right and Left, then Barack Obama is your man.

As long as we follow others’ bread crumbs rather that creating our own message or gobbling up the crumbs instead of staying on message, we hurt our own cause. We must stay on message! We are looking at the most dangerous, crazy field of Republican candidates ever, but rather than show our conservative friends and families the stark differences between them and President Obama, we’re busy bashing him in the most obtuse, juvenile ways with insults to his character and courage. As usual, we on the Left let one opportunity after another go by while we eat our own.

I suggest we try something different this time. Let’s get behind the President’s jobs bill and push it through Congress. Dammit, let’s get is right (uh... correct) this time.

They're Not The Same

This is a rare Sunday "Must Read."

Former 30-year Republican Capitol Hill staffer Mike Lofgren, has written a rather extensive piece explaining the machinations of the GOP, leading to his decision to retire after witnessing the current crop of crazies that has enveloped the Republican Party. It's a truly insightful piece that needs to be read, shared and pulled out when confronted by your idiot relative at the next family dinner when they take center stage to proclaim that "both parties are the same." Here are some tasty morsels:

...The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP. 

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics... the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

[...]

...It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.

[...]

...The media are also complicit in [the phenomenon of distrust of the government.] Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'" 

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

[...]

If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.

The "both sides are the same" meme is what got us in trouble in 2000. Does anyone want to wager that a President Al Gore would have invaded a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack on our soil? Or that had there  been a keener eye at the helm we would have had a better chance at possible prevention of the attack in the first place?

Let's not make that same mistake again.

Go read, "Goodbye To All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left The Cult." ...NOW.

Just So We're Clear On The Gas Price Thing...

... and frankly because I'm getting sick and tired of Mississippi Governor Boss Hogg and his inane meme that President Obama is somehow manipulating high gas prices because of administration policies (it comes out whenever Barbour decides to open his cakehole), "Drill here, drill now" has nothing to do with gas current prices. That goes for House Speaker John Boehner and Sarah Palin too. Boehner's just using it as a political tool, while Palin should just shut her yapper for once and trying learning something. Drilling here, drilling now might yield oil production increases... in a decade or two, which has nothing to do with today's prices. And the experts, conservative or not, agree:

Near-term fluctuations in gasoline prices are determined by two primary factors: crude oil prices and seasonality. Since the deepwater drilling delay applies only to exploration and production, it would take years, maybe a decade to get any amount of crude oil out of the ground and into our gas tanks. In the meantime, global crude oil supply is exactly the same as it would have been if the government were giving away permits like candy.

~ Chris Lafakis, economist at Moody's Analytics and expert in energy markets

It's not credible to blame the Obama Administration's drilling policies for today's high prices because of the relative scales involved. As I indicated the last time, world oil prices are determined in a market of around 85 million barrels per day of production and consumption, while the consequences of domestic drilling, particularly in the Gulf, likely would be more in the range of several hundred thousand to one million barrels per day, and most of that production would not occur for a number of years.

~Michael Canes, research fellow at the Logistics Management Institute and former chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute

Higher oil prices today are a global phenomenon, and the additional supply from increased drilling by the U.S. would not alter the global balance of supply and demand greatly. Gasoline prices at the pump would be higher either way.

~Lou Crandall, chief economist of Wrightson ICAP LLC, an independent research firm that analyzes high-frequency economic data

Even if you gave permission to drill, it might take generally about seven years for oil to get to market. So that has absolutely no effect on the price of oil today. None whatsoever. The amount of extra oil that the U.S. would produce, as far as affecting the world price of oil, is almost insignificant.
People who say producing more oil will bring price down for Americans are missing the fact that it's a world market. For instance, oil produced in North Slope may very well go to Japan. There's not a separate market -- It's a world market.

~Tom O'Donnell, professor of Graduate International Affairs at The New School and expert on the globalized energy sector

Drilling here, drilling now will only serve to add more oil production to the global market at minimum in the year 2018. It may be harvested on our land, but that doesn't mean it's ours. It's put into a reserve where we are free to purchase it at global prices. And for this privilege, we continue to give exorbitant subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil.

If Haley Barbour is serious about running for president, then he needs to stop sounding like a fool when it comes to energy policy and lying about the true causes of rising gas and oil prices.

And while we're at it, maybe the media should actually do the research, tell the truth and challenge anyone who tries to blurt out nonsense for purely political purposes instead of having two nitwit talking heads arguing both sides of an issue and giving both sides equal gravitas. Usually, someone is right and someone is wrong. Usually, someone is being honest, and someone isn't. So do your homework and call them out on it. Isn't that what you're supposed to do with liars when you have truth on your side?

Hillary: Our MSM Sucks, Al Jazeera Rocks

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Our Broken Mainstream Media

Hey, I like Two and a Half Men as much as the next guy. It's mindless, crass entertainment that takes your mind off your troubles for 30 minutes a week... for 22 weeks out of the year. But can we please stop with the 24/7 coverage of Charlie Sheen blowing a brain gasket? I don't think my personal world is going to suffer if I lose 11 collective hours* of television entertainment per year. And that includes commercials.

When did the mind of America atrophy? When did we lose our way and become a civilization subsisting on reality television schadenfreude? And we can't even allow for legitimate news on supposed news shows anymore, as Stephen Colbert points out.

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Sarah Palin is a dolt. But in this case, she's right, even if it's for all the wrong reasons. Her stupid, little "lamestream media" dig actually works in certain cases. And this is one of them.

__________________
* Yes, if you haven't thought about it, Charlie Sheen was making $44 million per season for a collective body of work totaling 11 hours a year.

Teabagger Miller Going the Palin Lamestream Media Strategy

Alaskan Republican/Tea Party Senate candidate is drawing "a line in the sand" or maybe more like sticking his head in the sand and refusing to answer any questions about his background from now on.

Alaska U.S. Senate hopeful Joe Miller said Monday he will no longer answer reporters' questions about his background and personal life, following what he called a leak of his personnel record from when he served as a government attorney.

Miller offered no proof of this during a brief news conference in Anchorage...

..."We've drawn a line in the sand," he said. "You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues, I'm not going to answer them. I'm not. This is about the issues. ... This is about moving this state forward, and that's our commitment."

So what are the consequences of all these Tea Party candidates, Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, not making themselves available to the media? Not answering to some questionable issues in their past is now okay with these pathetic candidates? So... when will they stop asking about President Obama's past? I mean, if it's about the issues and not about the person's background, we should all be good, right?

Shut Up, Harry

Why can't we go more than a couple news cycles without someone making stupid comments that only cause more distraction from real stories?

Senate Majority Leader and pulchritude appreciator Harry Reid believes that New York Senator Kirsten Gillebrand is his “hottest” colleague.

Heckjuva job, Harry.

Adding... Speaking of distractions...

Mainstream Media Suckered Again - UPDATED

You'd think that after Al Capone's vault, yellowcake in Niger, Piltdown Man, weapons of mass destruction and the Balloon Boy - the mainstream media,  who believed a crackpot that said God told him to burn the Qurans on 9/11 and then canceled it on an agreement that Park51 would be moved to a different location, would know better. But they don't. This time they got took by Gabby Hayes.

UPDATE (8pm): Apparently, Pastor Gabby Hayes has now clarified that the Quran burning is "suspended" while he prays to figure out what to do next. And the media is riveted. ...Wow.

Am I Going Nuts?

I've just watched three news stories in a row on MSNBC about how our taxes would go up if President Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire. Have I gone absolutely insane, or has the President not said that he would let the Bush tax cuts sunset on the top 2% of earners and extend them for everyone making $250,000 or less?

They even used a clip of Obama saying, (paraphrasing) "If we extend the tax cuts to Warren Buffet, he's not going to change his spending habits. If we extend them to a family making $40,000 a year, that could mean a new computer for their kid, or making their mortgage payment."

It seems they completely ignored that quote and all the stories were based on the assumption that the tax cuts would expire for everyone, which as I understand it, has never been on the table. MSNBC is really in the tank for Obama, huh?

Quote of the Day

"What does it say about America now, and where it is heading, that a racial provocateur, wielding a deceptively edited video, could not only smear an innocent woman but make every national institution that touched the story look bad? The White House, the N.A.A.C.P. and the news media were all soiled by this episode. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans, who believe in fundamental fairness for all, grapple with the poisonous residue left behind by the many powerful people of all stripes who served as accessories to a high-tech lynching."

~ Frank Rich

Make Them Vote NO - UPDATED

Yesterday, the Senate brought the financial reform cloture vote to the floor again, and for the second straight day, Republicans voted against moving forward on financial reform debate. For the second straight day, Republicans voted to protect Wall Street while claiming to be looking out for Main Street.

We didn't hear about that vote because the mainstream media was too engrossed in the Goldman Sachs Senate hearing. You know, the one where Senators were saying naughty words. We didn't hear about the second vote because the MSM likes drama and the GOP blocking the financial bill a second time was "old" news. Twenty four hours old.

However, I am beginning to enjoy the Democratic strategy of making the GOP vote against cloture over and over and over again. Someone is going to notice and say, "Hey, what's with the Republicans opposing financial reform?" Maybe they'll be saying that today on the news with a story of the impending block for a third straight day. Just like the Goldman Sachs executives claiming they did nothing wrong, Republicans will eventually be exposed for their bullshit excuses on why they're on their knees for the fat cats soon enough.

UPDATE (2:55pm): Republicans vote 'No' for a third straight day. But the fun is just beginning.

TPM: Frustrated by an ongoing campaign by the GOP to block debate on financial reform legislation, Democrats plan to hold the Senate floor open all night, potentially holding repeated votes to break the filibuster, or forcing Republicans to publicly object to debating their bill. But the move comes just as Republicans appear closer than ever to throwing in the towel.

Could it be that staying on the floor all night put a crimp in Sen. Mitch McConnell's beach plans to lay his eggs and bury them?

So Much For The "Do Nothing" Congress

A great point was made this morning by Bob Cesca about the unprecedented amount of obstructionism that has occurred since Democrats took over the majority in Congress in 2007 and the "dig your heels into the ground" GOP mentality since President Obama took office. And yet, the President's success rate in Congress on roll call votes is higher than any in presidential history since the stat has been taken, while facing the highest obstruction in history.

The new CQ study gives Obama a higher mark than any other president since it began scoring presidential success rates in Congress more than five decades ago. And that was in a year where Obama tackled how to deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, an expanding terrorist threat, the economic crisis and battles over health care.

...A major reason for Obama's record high score this year: Democrats took away a significant number of seats from Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections, resulting in big majorities in the House and Senate for the president's party.

But Sarah Binder, a congressional analyst at the Brookings Institution, says there's another key reason he scored so well. She says he only took an official position on issues that were really important to him — those that he knew he had a very good chance of winning.[*] He picked his battles carefully.

"He can do that because he's been in the Senate, his staff has been in the House and he understands the process here. They are consummate congressional insiders in understanding how this works," Binder says.

Now that's not to say I believe that the President shouldn't push harder for what he wants and hold his hand out in the interest of "bipartisanship" less, but just to point out that the mainstream media meme claiming the President can't close the deal (which started while campaigning against Hillary Clinton) or wingnuts who claim "we need more than a charismatic guy with a teleprompter" is just plain bullshit.

Also, when looking at overall job approval ratings for President Obama, which currently stands at 53%, there's been an uptick in February since he started fighting back and being more vocal about what he wants and calling out Republicans who are blocking every move with filibusters, holds and in most cases, just flat out stupidity.  So when you hear "the American people have spoken" and they don't want this or that as proven by polls, I think the more telling sign is the frustration with the President not because the don't believe in his policies, but because the think he should fight back harder for his agenda.

*Sarah Binder contradicts herself - does Obama take sides when he knows it's an easy win or when it's an important piece of legislation? I personally believe it's the latter.

Adding... My point here wasn't to suggest that the Congress is doing a bang up job (clearly they can be doing much better) but only to point out the Democrats are not doing as horribly as we're led to believe by most reports. There has been some major, positive legislation passed in President Obama's first year in office, despite the Party of No.

The Non-Existent Double Standard

The more I think about these last few Carrie Prejean meltdown interviews, the more it pisses me off. It may be that the ladies on The View actually gave her her most challenging interview to date. And without fail, Prejean brings up liberal media double standard. Or should I say the non-existent liberal media double standard.

I suppose it feels real to her after participating in softball interviews on Hannity or some other Fox show. But as she appears on other shows, as evidenced on Larry King, I think she thinks she can dictate how the interview goes. Sure, you're going to get uncomfortable questions when not surrounded by supporters, but that's how these things work. If you write a book about yourself and start publicizing it at the same time that it's revealed that you made a sex tape, lied about the age at which you made it, then the fact comes out that there could be a couple of dozen of them at a LEGAL age, which you also lied about, you might wind up being in a couple of situations that don't feel so homey.

And her accusations continue to have the mainstream media by the balls. For any criticism by talking heads or news outlets about a Republican or Conservative, especially when that criticism is truly warranted, they are all accused of the "double standard" that Carrie Prejean was whining about. How many times has that idiot already said, "If Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly said some of the things about Michelle Obama or Sonia Sotomayor that Keith Olbermann has said about me, they would be off. The. Air." They know it's coming. They've seen previous interviews. And they know that that pretty, little vacuous head of hers can't hold too much information except for the usual talking points, but do they prepare for a rebuttal?

Something like, "Well, actually, Hannity has constantly taken quotes from Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis completely out of context to make it sound like some racial views she was quoting were her own. Did you know that? Did you watch Fox News Channel at all during the election when pretty much every program was characterizing Michelle Obama as a bitter, militant, angry black woman?" But nothing. Prejean, and every other Republican or Conservative frankly, attacks the non-existent "liberal" media bias and the talking heads walk to the corner with their tails between their legs and don't bother challenging that lie for fear of being labeled "liberal."

But fine. Let them keep propping up Prejean's tome, the life of a 22 year-old beauty pageant queen. Riveting reading. Let Oprah hawk Sarah Palin's new, five chapter book. Then let's see Palin run in 2012. It's a win-win, and you know the GOP is quaking in its shit-kicking boots. If she runs on a Conservative ticket she'll fracture the party and the Democrats win just like NY-23. If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate her, they'll lose the Independents and the Democrats win. Sit back and think for a minute on a debate between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Oh. My. God.

Do you think he'll have to bone up on some winking and some fancy pageant walkin'?

More Proof Fox News Isn't News

The backlash after Sunday's talk shows in which David Alexrod and Rahm Emanuel took a shot at Fox "News" for being more opinion and propaganda than news has been on the rise. But here's just more proof.



(H/T Video via Cesca)

White House: Fox News Is Not A News Organization

Wingnuts fling feces in 5... 4... 3...





Does any rational person still really doubt this? Fox News has always had a conservative slant which is their right. They're in the business of infotainment and they'll hawk whatever will turn a profit. But "fair and balanced" it's never been. And anyone who says that MSNBC is a liberal equivalent is sorely mistaken. Other than the two straight liberal shows (Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show) who base their stories on facts instead of lies and distortions, show me the Fox News equivalent of Morning Joe or Hardball? Show me a liberal nutball on MSNBC crying on a nightly basis with leaps of logic on a prop blackboard. Sure, Keith Olbermann can be over emotional, but look for criticisms and factchecking on his show based on what he says instead of how he says it and you'll have a long, hard search.

The White House has every reason to be wary of real news organizations falling into the for-profit, if it bleeds it leads, Fox style of "news" broadcasting. No one says Fox can't have it's opinion, but purposely misleading or distorting facts, or building a segment based on RNC talking points complete with typos is not news.

The More Things Change...

This cartoon was posted by a Facebook friend with the caption, "This cartoon is over five years old. Things have gotten even WORSE since it was drawn."



The slow death march of journalism continues...

Douche Quote of the Day, Part 4

posted by Armadillo Joe

"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor"
- Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary

(sigh)

Why concede any ground at all when the wingnuts were well and truly about to implode into a fine red mist of degenerate racism and reprobate misogyny?

Why?

Washington D.C. is hard-wired for Republican Rule. As Atrios pointed out today, no matter how bad things may be for Republicans at any given moment (and they look pretty bad right now), the GOP will always enjoy a home field advantage in Washington. That's why we bloggers invented the term "Villagers" to describe all those Kewl Kidz who golf-clap their approval whenever some politician displays strength by punching a dirty fucking hippie in the face. Their incomes and class and economic upbringing and social status all make them part of a non-partisan ruling elite who nevertheless distrust an "Other" which usually resides in the Democratic Party. This reflexive distrust of the less monied, the less plugged-in, the less connected, the less powerful, the less glamorous -- frankly, hatred for the riff-raff -- gives them a natural affinity for the policies, procedures, arguments and methods of the Rethugli-goons, whose raison d'tre is to advocate for The Villagers -- not as "Villagers" per se, but simply as the rich, entitled, powerful people who expect special treatment that they are.

I mean, hell, Cheney's speech last week was presented by our MSM opposite Obama's like anything a potentially-indicted private citizen has to say about anything even remotely merits 1/10th the attention as an important speech by the sitting president. And Cheney reinforced that whole misguided notion by growling his way through a pro-torture "answer" to Obama national security speech, strutting and preening like the titular head of a government in exile, which to much of The Village he is.

So, now, the official stance of the White House is that some of the things Sotomayor said casually in a public forum almost ten years ago are out-of-bounds and, like that poorly-trained friend's dog we all know who will take the slightest breath of a hint of attention from a house-guest to jump and slobber and bark, a perpetually-in-search-of-conflict media pounces on the hairline fracture to split it wide-open. Shuster and Fineman nattered away on Hardball today like two old biddies in a sewing circle about the young hussy who just moved in down the street.

As digby said about it today:

Republicans were acting like crazed freaks, alienating Hispanics by the thousands and making women hate them even more, and the whole country was aghast. Why they gave them validation on this, I don't really understand.

[...]

this controversy will make it necessary for Sotomayor to bow and scrape before Jeff Sessions and Orrin Hatch. The wingnuts have been hoping for a chance for some payback for Thomas and maybe they'll get a pound of female flesh this time.

Two steps forward, three steps back.