There are some things that are so ridiculous that they defy basic logic. Normally, this happens on Fox News, but CNN shows that it is not immune to stupidity and the unwillingness to strongly challenge borderline insane comments. Conservative commentator and strategist Mary Matalin was on CNN with John King (appearing along with her husband, Democratic strategist James Carville) and made the following inexplicable, head-scratching comment:
MATALIN: I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history. And President Bush dealt with it and within a year of his presidency within a comparable time, unemployment was at 5 percent.
Here is one thing that caught my attention (as you will see in the short video clip). On the one hand she is whining about President Obama bashing President George W. Bush, but then turns right around and blames President Clinton (for the recession and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001) to excuse President Bush.
It just shows how much of a hypocrite Mary Matalin is and how little credibility she has to speak on important issues. Yet, CNN brings her back time and time again and almost never challenges her with any kind of strength.
Frank Lucas: Simple Simon-ass motherfuckers!
From the 2007 film American Gangster
Simple-Simon conservatives take great pleasure in attacking cities like Detroit and Chicago (right-wing Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham did that again over the weekend in an effort to take a shot at President Obama). However, for the purposes of this blog, I am choosing to focus on one of the many shots being taken at Detroit. Full disclosure: Detroit is where I was born and raised. So, as a native Detroiter, we are accustomed to outside agitators gleefully taking cheap shots at the city of Detroit. Since the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States, the city of Chicago has gotten a taste for how viciously some are willing to attack a city (as far as I am concerned, it was wrong when people attacked Texas to get at George W. Bush and it’s wrong when people attack Chicago to get at President Obama). Still, the business of attacking cities for political purposes continues and thrives in today’s United States of America.
I know that some of you may think that the last thing Detroit needs is another hit piece. Granted, some could consider this video as THE hit piece. Detroit however, can serve as a valuable lesson to the rest of the country. It has been the perfect laboratory for leftist policies at work. The more you examine the policies of Detroit’s politicians, the more strikingly similar to this administration they become. The results… are shocking. Notice how I added the “…” for dramatic effect? I’m thoughtful like that.
Crowder is right on one thing: this is a hit piece with a dual purpose: smear Detroit and take a shot at the favorite boogeyman of the far-right freaks: liberalism.
The depth and breadth of the ignorance of this video is nothing short of staggering. It’s so one-dimensional and tired it makes the old Atari 2600 look modern.
This Simple-Simon conservative mostly ignores the biggest factors in Detroit’s decline (while taking great joy in bashing unions like the United Auto Workers … as conservatives love to do while favoring the rich corporate executives who run countries):
Auto industry decline
Auto industry mismanagement
Economically depending too much on the auto industry
White flight
Racial tension (race rioting) … sparked partly by competition for jobs and housing
Broken political promises (Crowder cites this, but only to attack liberals)
Shrinking population
Eroding tax base (a part of shrinking population and fleeing businesses)
Outsourcing to foreign countries
Relocation of major businesses to the suburbs
The U.S. trade deficit
… on and on it goes. But, why focus on those factors when Earth-is-flat Republicans can simply focus on their favorite topic: liberalism.
He ends the video with a shot of President Obama painted on a wall to take another partisan cheap shot in this far-right video that is lower and more disgusting than some of the filth it filmed and focused on in Detroit.
That’s not to say Detroit has its problems because it sure as hell does. But this garbage video is nothing more than the exploitation of Detroit for political purposes.
NOTE: I am not posting the video, but you can visit the Big Hollywood site to look at it if you choose.
Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly and far-right commentator Laura Ingraham had an interesting little exchange when Billy made a compliment (he might have had a senior moment or something) about first lady Michelle Obama. Ingraham, who is a far-right nut, didn’t like that and called him out. But, if there is one thing Bill O’Reilly dislikes more than anything to the left on the political spectrum, it’s having his ego (the size of the continent of Asia) bruised. Ingraham made that slip and he pretty much went off on her as if she had spit in the face of one of his parents.
Here is the exchange:
O’REILLY: Now for the top story tonight, how do conservative Americans feel about Howard Dean being on their side? Joining us from Washington, FOX News analyst and radio talk show star Laura Ingraham.
So I understand you and Dr. Dean have a dinner date tonight? Are you going to go out and.
INGRAHAM: Oh, yeah.
O’REILLY: Yeah?
INGRAHAM: It’s like you and Michelle Obama. We’re like this.
O’REILLY: Hey, Michelle and I have very, very close. Very close.
INGRAHAM: I’m gushing over your gushing last night about the Christmas party. I’m still trying to get over that.
O’REILLY: Wait, a minute. I’m going to call you – I’m calling you out on this.
INGRAHAM: Oh, man.
O’REILLY: I thought she was very nice at the party.
INGRAHAM: What do you think she’s going to do to you?
O’REILLY: I thought she treated everybody respectfully. And you’re giving me a hard time about that because I reported honestly.
INGRAHAM: What did you think she’s going to do you? Not allow you near to the punch bowl? I mean, of course she’s going to be nice to you.
O’REILLY: So what? She was nice. I reported what happened. And you have a beef with it?
INGRAHAM: I don’t remember you gushing over Laura Bush.
O’REILLY: Well, then you have a bad memory, Miss Laura, because I said.
INGRAHAM: Yeah.
O’REILLY: When Laura Bush gave the initial speech at convention in 2000, I was the first broadcaster to say this woman gave an extraordinary speech on education.
INGRAHAM: I have one question for you.
O’REILLY: So you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t call me out on that.
INGRAHAM: Bill, one question.
O’REILLY: Go ahead.
INGRAHAM: Did you eat an ACORN cookie last night?
O’REILLY: Oh, bull. You are a blind ideologue who even if somebody’s nice to you, won’t admit it because, you’re, talking about a Kool-Aid drinker.
INGRAHAM: I’m sure that.
O’REILLY: Come on.
INGRAHAM: Oh, come on.
O’REILLY: You have an IV attached to your arm on the Kool-aid.
INGRAHAM: They’re a beautiful family, but let’s talk about the health care bill.
O’REILLY: All right.
This exchange shows two key things: (1) Ingraham is so far to the right she can’t say anything even remotely positive about the other side and (2) O’Reilly has an ego bigger than Africa as proven by the fact his feelings clearly were hurt by Ingraham’s blindly-partisan attack.
The funny part comes up next.
Here is what Steve, from The O’Reilly Sucks Blog, wrote:
Now think about this, Billy said she is a blind ideologue Kool-Aid drinker, but he has her host his show when he is not there. So he is admitting he has a Kool-Aid drinking blind ideologue as his fill-in host. Which also proves that he is an ideologue because he is the one who picked her to be his fill-in.
That is pretty well said. It helps prove that O’Reilly is a right-winger who has other far-right extremists hosting his show in his absence. Remember that the next time Ingraham (with that stupid, doll-like grin and nasal-congested speech) hosts The Factor (if she gets another shot after this) or think about it any time you watch an old episode of the show that she guest-hosted in his absence.
On Friday’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News right-wing commentator Bill O’Reilly cried more than a spoiled kid in Toys R Us hearing “NO” for the first time. So, what was O’Reilly crying about: his old archenemy Sen. Al Franken. O’Reilly has been waging a war against Franken since before the man became a senator from the state of Minnesota. Franken has been one to stand up to Bully O’Reilly and not take his crap and that is something O’Reilly can’t stand. Like a true bully, O’Reilly depends on intimidation and fear as his weapons of choice.
This all brings me to the nontroversy involving Sen. Franken cutting off Sen. Joe Lieberman who had used up his 10 minutes of time. Sen. Franken, by several reports, merely was following the rules as he was made aware. O’Reilly, however, since blood in the water and once again used his platform to wage a personal battle (think back to previous personal attacks he has made against Boyce Watkins, Jesse Jackson, Ward Churchill, NBC, GE, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Dr. George Tiller … to name a VERY FEW). When O’Reilly got word of the incident (one that even Sen. Lieberman laughed off) he went nuts and used it as provocation to attack Sen. Franken.
O’REILLY: Yesterday on the Senate floor, Joe Lieberman was talking about the health care bill and politely asked for an extension to wrap up his remarks. He didn’t even wait for verbal approval because it is almost always given. But not yesterday. That’s because Senator Al Franken, who was in a rotation presiding over the Senate, objected to Lieberman continuing his remarks in a stunning display of disrespect.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone – Franken is a hater and always has been. But it illuminated why the far-left is despised by most Americans. Franken’s actions were mean, petty, and disrespectful. That’s what we often get from the far-left – just look at their web sites and the savages spewing venom on cable television. It’s true that the right does some of that stuff as well, but not nearly as much.
In the end, Franken’s behavior is self-defeating. It’s incredible that the man is even in the Senate, and now he’s alienated most of the country. Does the far-left really think it’s going to get the support of most Americans using tactics like that?
This shows how nutty O’Reilly really has become and how his sanity is slipping through his greasy fingers. It also, once again, puts on display his right-wing hatred for anything that he perceived to be to the left of the political mainstream. It was not a display of disrespect. Sen. Franken politely told Sen. Lieberman that he had used his time up and there would be no extensions granted. It’s not like he said, “Bitch, sit your punk ass down and be quiet.”
Bill O’Reilly calling anyone a hater is laughable and hilarious considering how much he hates Sen. Franken. So, in other words, he was being directly hypocritical.
In the second paragraph of O’Reilly’s above comments you see his right-wing bias spring to the surface. The last sentence of the second paragraph again illustrates his bias and ignorance. He gives you the boilerplate “the other side does it too.” Only problem is O’Reilly almost never talks about anything negative related to Republicans and when he does it is usually minimized.
The first sentence of the third paragraph shows just how ridiculous O’Reilly is as most people could care less about the exchange. Most people understand that you have rules and you follow them without complaining because you don’t get an exception.
Once again, Bill O’Reilly uses his Fox News-granted platform to fight his personal battle with Sen. Al Franken.
While Sen. Franken has worked hard and is fighting for people, Bill O’Reilly is making lots of money by waging personal vendettas on the airwaves of Fox News.
BOBB: To hell with him. Who the hell does he think he is? There’s nothing wrong with these kids’ minds. Maybe something’s wrong with the adults.
Here is another excerpt:
Bobb says “there’s nothing wrong” with the minds of Detroit students. Bobb has been in charge of district finances since March. He recently asked state lawmakers to also give him control over academics.
Smith made those idiotic comments and showed just how increasingly reckless commentators are getting as the line between news and scarcely considered opinion is now barely visible.
Good pick up by Jon Stewart’s team in regard to another one of these moronic Tea Party protests.
Tea Baggers are essentially saying “keep your black hands off of our health care.”
Is this just a coincidence or are people wanting black people (represented in their eyes and minds by President Obama) to keep their dark hands off of the health care of the USA (illustrated in red, white and blue colors)?
Good catch by The Daily Show. Be sure to watch the video, here.
Detroit Public Schools justifiably have been taken to task for a poor record which, most recently, was displayed by record-low test scores that have been in the bright glare of the national media spotlight. As a city, Detroit has been an easy and frequent target of those who want to attack a variety of topics (including the quality of urban black leadership, so-called liberal ideology, the sting of decades of white flight, conflict at times between the city and the suburbs, problems associated with the troubled auto industry and more). Much of the criticism directed at Detroit mostly is justified (even as the city, in some ways, is showing signs of fighting back and perhaps rising up to a more respectable status).
But, even with Detroit’s problems, the comments by Fox News commentator Shepard Smith were irresponsible, ignorant, insulting and perhaps dangerous.
“If my kid were in Detroit, I’d try to burn the place down,” Smith said during a discussion on the city of Detroit’s recently acknowledged record-low test scores.
Obviously, Smith did not mean that comment to be taken literally (as if to say that parents or other citizens should run out into the streets and begin burning up everything in sight. In no way am I saying or insinuating that he had that reality in mind when he made his reckless comments. Two people who understand the discussion and the city of Detroit also believe that Smith went too far with his comments. The two people in question are school board member Tyrone Whinfrey and Detroit Parent Network Executive Director Sharlonda Buckman.
Here are their responses:
“We’re not going to burn down Detroit,” Whinfrey told local Fox affiliate WJBK after the interview. “We’re going to stand together in the city.”
Buckman, a fierce critic of the district herself, said Shepard’s comment was shameful. “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
Well said by both Whinfrey and Buckman.
Fox News television commentators often are quick to ditch journalistic integrity, editorialize and take shots at people (almost always liberals or something they feel liberals represent or are responsible for on one level or another). Smith, who is not nearly as bad as most at Fox News, should have been more careful to understand the bitter history in the city of Detroit including fires related to deadly race riots and fires related to the infamous Devil’s Night. Smith’s comments are dangerous because plays to a theme of negative stereotypes of inner city black people rioting and burning stuff down.
It’s easy for people like Shepard Smith to pile on Detroit right now and make degrading comments.
Face it, that’s what a lot of opportunistic people do.
For far too many individuals, you can’t stand tall unless you’re standing on someone else’s back.
The blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.
Tiger Woods has been getting hammered by more than just his wife, Elin, since his car accident and alleged affairs have been thrust into the media’s range.
Obviously, I don’t condone marital infidelity by Woods or anyone else – whether it was with one woman or it was with 15. And, the same holds true for women because, contrary to popular belief, women cheat just like men cheat. Still, if even a portion of what is being alleged about Tiger Woods is true then it does almost seem as though he had a whole separate life that a lot of people did not know about. But, should any of us really be shocked? No. Tiger Woods is a human beings and human beings do good things and human beings do bad things. The only ones who are shocked are those who put Tiger Woods on a pedestal (because they admired him so much or because they wanted to see him fall from it).
That said, one thing I have found interesting about the Woods’ mess is the reaction of some of Tiger’s fellow golfers who have turned the Professional Golf Association (PGA) into the Professional Haters Association (PHA). It’s amazing how Woods’ seemingly self-inflicted misery (which has damaged his reputation, but not irreparably) has opened the door to the closet haters to come out and bash the player (Tiger Woods).
For the time being, Tiger Woods’ major sponsors — including Nike and Tag Heuer – haven’t dropped him. But things could change in the wake of a messy, public divorce. In fact, many of Tiger’s colleagues in the golf world have already made up their minds about the situation — and wasted no time badmouthing their former friend. Jesper Parnevik, the Swedish golfer who introduced Elin, then his kids’ nanny, to Tiger, has said he regrets doing so. “We probably thought he was a better guy than he is,” Parnevik said.
Ben Crane, a PGA player, has even harsher words. “This is no surprise to anyone who knows Tiger,” Crane tells Life & Style. “He’s a phony and a fake and he can’t retain that squeaky-clean endorsement deal any longer.” Crane also believes Elin may have known about Tiger’s other women. ”She’s no fool,” Crane says, adding that perhaps Elin “turned a blind eye because of the money and the kids and the lifestyle he provides.”
PGA golfer Charles Warren agrees that it may have been more than love that attracted Elin to Tiger but that she should definitely leave him in light of what’s happened. “She was very young when Jesper introduced them,” Warren tells Life & Style. “She had stars in her eyes and maybe dollar signs too. But no, she should not stay with him. What kind of message would that send to her sister and mother and all the women out there? That your husband can be a bastard but as long as he makes the deal worthwhile, you’ll stay?”
For more on Tiger’s cheating, pick up the new issue of Life & Style, on newsstands now!
That represents some interesting stuff to me.
Some of these cats have been waiting on an opportunity like this one to get at Tiger Woods.
“… Squeaky-clean endorsement deal…” Crane said.
That is an interesting statement.
Crane, a PHA player, went to work on Woods with some scathing comments that frankly stinks of him having a lot of hate inside of him. Crane, running a clinic on player hating with these comments, sounds like a guy holding inner resentment toward Woods and waiting on something to happen so he could express his true feelings.
The mess is for Tiger and Elin to sort out, but it is interesting how it reveals the ugly side of some other people who see an opportunity to attack this couple – most likely out of suppressed jealousy.
“Money” Mike Steele, the Republican National Committee’s chairman and leader of the right-wing’s reluctant exploration of hip hop culture, was back on the mic again. This time, he was in a conversation on an MSNBC show and last seen essentially running and screaming away from Donny Deutsch, who called out Steele for his comments directed at Sen. Harry Reid. Steele’s comments were part of an orchestrated effort to play the so-called race card while accusing Democrats of playing the so-called race card. It is, to say the very least, a very interesting strategy.
Here is an excerpt from a Think Progress story that features strong comments from Hip Hop Mike (as The Field Negro aptly calls him):
On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski called Reid’s remarks “unfortunate.” Her guest, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, said Reid needs to “check himself” and ripped him for being “out of touch,” “clueless,” and “ignorant.”
Wow, Hip Hop Mike was setting it off.
Those are quite the strong comments, including, ”check himself?” It seems Hip Hop Mike is at it again trying to fire up his crew with some straight-up off-the-hook comments.
I thought we squashed these beefs with 2Pac and Biggie.
Check out these thoughtful, scholarly and measured responses from RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
DEUTSCH: I’m still trying to understand why the analogies he’s made are wrong. Obviously, the issue here is that any great change throughout history has the naysayers saying “it’s not time, it’s not time.” So why was that an irrelevant analogy?
STEELE: I won’t even dignify that with a response.
DEUTSCH: What do you mean, dignify? It’s a question, it’s a genuine question.
STEELE: Next question.
DEUTSCH: It’s a genuine question.
STEELE: Next question. Come on. I’m sorry, sir. I’m not going to sit here and say it’s an appropriate comparison to slavery.
DEUTSCH: He’s not. He’s comparing it to dramatic change, and the naysayers to change.
STEELE: Whatever, whatever. Next question.
DEUTSCH: That’s a great response. Very, very intelligent, brave response.
STEELE: It is. As was your question.
Hip Hop Mike went a little too far back in his youth… back to like kindergarten with his responses. Come on, Hip Hop Mike. It’s time to grow up and not running screaming from debate in a childish display of weakness.
I’ve taken an opportunity to reexamine the controversial comments of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And, as a result of taking another look at his words, I’ve changed my mind and I think he was pretty much on target with what he said (even if it may come at a bit of a political cost). Reid is right when he speaks of the obstructionists who are akin to those who barked against women’s rights, the Civil Rights Movement, the movement to abolish slavery and the movement for fundamental fairness for GLBTs (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender). We hear the same words: slow down, lets take it slow, lets take a closer look, we’re moving too fast, it’s too soon, be patient, things will work out … blah, blah, blah.
“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ’slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ’slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”
He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.
“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”
Note that conservatives latched onto the race aspect of what Reid said and all but ignored the full context of what he said when he talked about the rights of women as well? You can believe this is no accident. Once again, the diversity-lacking Republicans are trying to use race as a way of attacking black people and fueling resentment in the hearts of some whites who might be predisposed with the election of Barack Obama.
Multicultural icon Rush Limbaugh is at it again telling black people how bad they are and how pitiful they are in today’s United States of America. He now is telling people ”the black frame of mind is terrible” on his radio broadcast that reaches millions of people. The sad thing is that the millions of people he reach believe in just about everything he is saying and support his frequent racial, sexist and homophobic attacks. He criticizes black people for thinking the election of Barack Obama was going to be this huge turnaround of the economy when actually conservatives were saying that about President Obama and portraying him as some kind of celebrity and calling him “The One” as a way of attacking him.
Some of this might resonate with the 18 black people who probably listen to Limbaugh, but not much beyond that small minority.
Then noted race relations expert Rush Limbaugh finishes off his idiotic rant by taking a shot at Tiger Woods and his interracial marriage by saying, “Tiger Woods’ choice of females not helping them out with their attitudes there either.”
Rush Limbaugh’s words translated: Black people are not working, black people are bad, blacks have bad attitudes, blacks are depressed, blacks are down, blacks are disillusioned and blacks are being screwed by Barack Obama. Then you got Tiger Woods who is messing around with white women and showing you just how bad people of color are today.
It’s always interesting to hear from champions of diversity and inclusion like Rush Limbaugh when he shares his firsthand knowledge of all that is bad with black people and how they can turn it all around if they listen to Uncle Ruckus Lim … er… Uucle Rush Limbaugh.
Republicans have had a rather dubious in regard to race relations for decades, but it seems their sensitivity to race has recently been heightened. The right-wing has spotted some blood in the water and is going after one of its favorite targets: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who likened the Republican health care opposition to slavery. As one might expect, right-wing nuts emerged from everywhere to pounce on Sen. Reid and accuse of him of playing the so-called race card (one of angry Michelle Malkin’s favorite terms). Malkin is just one of a gang of conservatives moving into to attack like one of the groups from the legendary Michael Jackson music video, “Beat It.”
As Media Matters for America has pointed out, however, conservatives have for years attacked progressives (in particular) blacks for being slaves to the government. We’ve routinely heard from conservatives that people who are on welfare are like slaves and that if health care is enacted that people will essentially become slave-like.
Here are the remarks Media Matters for America cited from conservatives (with the usual subjects in Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin leading the way):
Fox’s Bolling: “Were you shocked as I was when I heard him?” On the December 7 edition of Fox News’ Your World, guest host Eric Bolling — who also frequently guest hosts for Glenn Beck — asked Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX): “[W]ere you shocked as I was when I heard him compare — if you were against health care, you may actually be in favor of slavery?” Bolling later asked if Reid’s comments were an indication of “desperation” about health care reform.
FoxNews.com: Reid “took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday.” In a December 7 article, FoxNews.com wrote that Reid “took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.”
Limbaugh: “This is outrageous.” On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that Reid’s remarks were “outrageous, because Harry Reid knows the Republican Party was born in the fight against slavery.” Limbaugh added that Reid’s remarks are an indication of what Democrats have “been reduced to.”
Malkin: Reid “playing the race card.” In a December 7 post, Michelle Malkin wrote that Reid was playing the race card in his remarks, adding: “I’m sure Nevadans appreciate being likened to slavemasters, too.”
It just goes to show the nuts at Fox News along with a cabinet-level nut like Malkin and the NOTUS (Nut Of The United States) Rush Limbaugh are the biggest of the hypocrites.
Where was Michelle Malkin’s outrage when Glenn Beck used slavery multiple times to attack progressives.
This is another way some conservatives gleefully spit in the face of minorities and act as if minorities are not smart enough to sift through the B.S. and middle-America whites are not smart enough to understand their game.
Lou Dobbs made a dubious name for himself during his late days at CNN for endlessly whining about illegal immigration and for displaying hostility toward Hispanics. After Dobbs and CNN parted company, it was rumored that he was being considered for a job at CNBC. That possibility caused those who have been most negatively impacted by Dobbs’ bigotry to step forward and make sure their voices were heard by CNBC and will be heard by any other major media organization that considers hiring Dobbs to sit in an anchor chair and give him a platform to potentially spit out more divisive rhetoric.
This past Wednesday, CNBC dispelled rumors that were circulating throughout the week that former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs would be joining the business network. Meanwhile, Dobbs affirmatively told Fox Business News shock jock Don Imus that he didn’t even talk with CNBC and that he had “no idea where they even got that.” However, National Hispanic Media President Alex Nogales told ThinkProgress today that CNBC was in fact talking with Dobbs and that his hiring was, at least in part, thwarted by the same coalition of Latino, civil rights, and media-watchdog groups that successfully campaigned to get Dobbs off CNN airwaves.
Who knows whether these groups had an impact on Dobbs’ not being hired by CNBC. One thing is for certain, however, the demons of Lou Dobbs’ past (in spite of the fact he has weakly attempted to soften his image among with Latinos since his departure from CNN) will continue to haunt him in the future.
He may find a position (even Don Imus did), but he will be watched and he will be challenged by those he has attacked throughout his career.
Palin is, of course, wrong to say that the public is still “rightfully” bringing up the issue — it’s been answered again and again at this point, and there’s no doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. But she is right about a couple things: For one, whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012, they won’t “have to bother to make it an issue.” It already will be, if not one discussed explicitly by the campaign and its surrogates, because so many Republicans already have doubts about the president’s birthplace. The fact that Palin and other mainstream figures, like Lou Dobbs and Tom DeLay, have indulged the Birthers doesn’t help matters.
Palin’s also right to draw a parallel between the conspiracy theories that surround Obama’s birth and the one about her son. The two are equally nutty. You’d hope, however, that going through that experience would teach her that it’s an awful thing to happen to anyone, regardless of political party. Instead, her attitude seems to be that the two wrongs somehow make a right.
That is a great point. All kinds of ugly rumors were spread during the campaign about her as they were about President Obama and his family. Yet, it seems Palin has not learned much from the ugliness that has targeted her own family. Palin continues to help the effort to mainstream the idiotic and already-debunked birther movement by pretty much irresponsibly endorsing it as an issue worthy of discussion.
Fox News takes a story about the small drop in in the jobless rate and spins in the worst possible way with this irresponsible headline that screams: RIGHT-WING BIAS.
This is the kind of bias and prejudice that makes Fox News look like a second-rate tabloid magazine.
Join me for a moment of laughter and take note of the phony-ass Fox News slogan: Fair & Balanced.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the darling of the right-wing, is back at it again – this time giving comfort to the nutty birthers who continue to attack President Obama. Governor Palin, who cried about the media and people coming after her as she resigned from her position in governor’s office in Alaska, now is continuing to advance the pathetic mission of the birthers. During a segment on the show of a right-ring radio talker named Rusty Humphries, it was Palin who went out of her way to provide a soothing hand of comfort to the birther morons who just can’t seem to come to grips with the president of the United States of America being a black man. That’s right, I said it. I do believe that this birther movement largely is motivated by a strong prejudice.
Yesterday while appearing on the right-wing radio show of Rusty Humphries, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin expressed her allegiance with the birther movement. She asserted that it was a “fair question” to ask whether President Obama was born in the U.S. “I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue,” she said. “I don’t have a problem with that.”
She doesn’t have a problem with it because she is a right-wing extremist, who has a bias against the president and you have to wonder if it is just a political and philosophical bias.
After the media picked up her comments, Palin went on her Facebook page at 1:16 a.m. and criticized reporters for calling her a birther and pushing “stupid conspiracies”:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
And, as Think Progress later pointed out, it was Palin who left the position of governor of Alaska crying about how the media and people were advancing all of these attacks on her. Then, she turns around and helps push an attack on President Obama that was long ago refuted. She cried about how the media, politicians and political operatives were attacking her and making it so difficult for her to conduct business (she was being dogged by allegations of ethics violations). Then she turns around and contributes to the same thing against President Obama.
Sarah Palin feels the “politics of personal destruction” are OK as long as they are directed at President Obama or some other Democrat and not directed at her.
Sarah Palin believes questions from idiot birthers in regard to where President Obama was born are OK, but questions raised about potential ethics violations against her are part of the “politics of personal destruction.”
Fox News right-wing talker Bill O’Reilly, who remains consistently dishonest about his political bias, already had his talking points prepared before President Obama’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. O’Reilly was already prepared to attack the leader of our nation before even hearing a word the man had to say about the war effort in Afghanistan.
Here is how Media Matters documents what O’Reilly said as he hosted a show to supposedly analyze the president’s speech on Afghanistan:
Following President Obama’s speech at West Point addressing the war in Afghanistan, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly criticized Obama for supposedly not “saying, ‘Look, these are bad guys. We’re fighting evil” and for not warning Americans that “[i]f we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed all over the world.” In fact, Obama referred to Al Qaeda as “extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam … to justify the slaughter of innocents,” he called the Taliban “a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement,” and he warned that withdrawing from Afghanistan now “would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.”
This is crazy even by Bill O’Reilly’s standards. Additionally, it proves he is a right-wing hater who will never be satisfied with much of anything this president does (after mostly kissing George W. Bush’s ass for eight years). He hammers the president for not using the exact language he wanted him to use (even though the president’s message was clear and strong).
Check out how Media Matters breaks it down and illustrates how O’Reilly’s prejudice paralyzes him in pretty much any discussion about President Barack Obama.
FACT: Obama referred to Al Qaeda as “extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam to justify the slaughter of innocents,” he called the Taliban “a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement,” and he warned that withdrawing from Afghanistan now “would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.”
OBAMA: We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith, or race, or station.
Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of these flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to Al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.
Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
O’Reilly also claimed that Obama didn’t put any urgency behind his words, like, ‘If we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed all over the world. Let’s wise up everybody and get in there and win it.’ “I didn’t see any of that.”
FACT: Obama said “new attacks are being plotted” from region, and withdrawal now would “create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks.”
OBAMA: I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda.
It is from here that we were attacked on 9-11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders, who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.
And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9-11, Al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan: We must deny Al Qaeda a safe haven; we must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government; and we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
Basically O’Reilly only saw what he wanted to see, and he was dishonest about that. As he claims to be fair to Obama, while him and Rove sit there and lie about everything he said in the speech.
Again, we see that O’Biased had a predetermined attack ready to unleash and it barely mattered what the president said. It’s kind of like when the President gives the State of the Union and the opposing party already has a predetermined counterattack ready to go. O’Reilly and others want to portray the president as being tough on terrorists in Afghanistan. Even as he pledged to send more troops to Afghanistan, the conservatives were all ready with new attacks.
You can’t please these right-wing nuts so don’t even try.
Sandy Gholston
