Archive for the ‘Media’ Category
Perhaps he can redeem himself at some point. But he sure is displaying some unsound thinking.
I liked his show on FOX.
He did a good job there with his diagrams, helping people connect the dots and showing viewers how Obama was hiring all these Maoists and Communists in key positions — i.e. Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director and self-professed Maoist) and Van Jones (self-professed Communist) and others.
What I liked most about Glenn Beck is he seemed to really appeal to women.
My wife Wanda loved Glenn Beck – used to DVR all his shows on FOX.
She wasn’t at all political. But Glenn connected with Wanda, helped engage her in politics, helped turn her into a conservative.
I’m sure she still likes him.
My three daughters have also been big fans of Glenn Beck.
I think one reason females like Glenn Beck is all the emoting and weeping.
He seems to really care.
I’m not a big emoter and weeper myself, but I can deal with that. If Glenn Beck can appeal to women by emoting and weeping, I’m all for him.
But when I’ve listened to his radio show lately, I really can’t find much of value. I actually like his cohost quite a bit better than Beck. I don’t know what his name is. He’s a young guy who generally makes more sense than Beck has been making lately.
In my opinion, Glenn Beck is talking too much about religion — at least for me.
Sorry, I’m not a Mormon. I’m a traditional Christian. Sometimes I go to Catholic Mass. Sometimes I go to an evangelical Bible Church.
But to me, Mormonism makes no sense. I like most Mormons as individuals. But I’m not going to take spiritual advice from Mormons.
Also, when I tune into conservative talk radio, I want to hear about politics and what Obama is up to. I’m not looking for spiritual guidance.
I get spiritual guidance from the church I attend, also from books I read.
So Glenn Beck’s big push of late is to make a big deal about his Mormon faith and how he’s delivering Teddy Bears, Soccer Balls and, I guess, food and other necessities to the tens of thousands of Central American children who are showing up in U.S. border towns.
Fine. It’s a humanitarian crisis — created by Obama.
But that’s really the point, isn’t it?
The crisis is created intentionally by Obama to achieve his Open Border policy objectives. That is, to destroy the United States of America by transforming the electorate.
So we have this humanitarian crisis — created by Obama. And now we have Glenn Beck — the dupe that he is — lecturing us about how we have a Christian obligation to these children who Obama brought into the country.
Certainly we have a Christian obligation to do what we can for these children — to make sure they don’t starve, that they received medical care, that they aren’t killed or sold as sex slaves by gangs and cartels.
But then we need to send them home.
There really is no other solution, no other answer.
If we say, fine, all of you can stay here, this just sends the message out to the rest of the world that if you find a way to get to America, you can stay in America,
All you have to do is set foot on American soil (by hook or by crook) and you get to stay. You even get to become an American citizen.
You become a voter . . . for the Democratic Party.
And that’s really what all this is about, at least as far as Obama and the Democrats are concerned.
They are trying to create millions of new voters for the welfare state.
But even that’s not quite the point about Glenn Beck, is it?
What Glenn Beck is doing is feeding into the Obama propaganda machine.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Do we have impoverished American citizens here at home we should be feeding and caring about first?
2) What about the people living in shacks in Appalachia or slums in the Bronx or Chicago’s Southside? Why aren’t they deserving of Glenn Beck’s food, diapers, soccer balls, and Teddy Bears?
3) Shouldn’t we be rushing emergency food to impoverished U.S. citizens and creating shelters for them (due to the Obama economy) before doing this for people from other countries?
4) Do we not have plenty of problems here in America before we start addressing the problems of people from other countries?
5) What is Glenn Beck’s stunt really all about? Why hasn’t he rushed trucks full of stuff to the Bronx or Chicago’s Southside? Why is he less concerned about impoverished Americans than impoverished Guatamalans?
Very strange. It makes no sense whatsover.
Basically, the answer is that he’s become a dupe for Obama.
I always say that when you see something really strange happening that can’t be explained by logic, follow the money.
Follow the money and you will find your answer.
Mormon Church-owned media is a massive enterprise that has consistently supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Glenn Beck is a product of the Mormon media enterprise.
Many business interests benefit from amnesty for illegal aliens. The Mormon Church’s public policy arm has been a dogged supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens.
And let’s not forget that the second most powerful man in America Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon and is in a position to provide significant federal support and benefits to the Mormon Church.
So Glenn Beck, an outspoken Mormon convert, a product of the Mormon Church’s enormous sprawling worldwide media empire, has a clear financial interest in keeping his powerful and wealthy patrons in the Mormon leadership happy.
Glenn Beck’s media enterprise would not be anywhere near as big as it is now without the backing of the LDS church leadership — which fervently backs Amnesty.
Here’s a good paper on the Mormon Church leadership’s massive lobbying efforts for Amnesty >>>
As often happens throughout life, money trumps principle. Money trumps the “rule of law.”
Business interests trump patriotism and love of country.
It’s all about the money.
This is a big problem with many church organizations — not just Mormon, but Christian churches even more so. The Catholic Church in America receives billions of dollars from the U.S. government. The largest protestant denominations also receive billions of dollars from the federal government.
Catholic Charities received $2.9 BILLION from the U.S. government in 2010 — more than half its budget. No doubt, this figure has increased since then.
That’s just one small arm of the Catholic Church. Who knows what the rest of the Catholic Church is receiving from Uncle Sam?
Billions more, no doubt.
The churches have been bought by the U.S. government, meaning bought now by Obama. He controls the cash.
In other words, so much for the “separation of church and state” principle.
The churches have been bought and corrupted by the federal government.
Even the National Association of Evangelicals is now supporting what Obama calls “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
Because either their most powerful members are getting lots of money from Uncle Sam. Or, they have a misunderstanding of Scripture. I think the former.
World Vision, a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, receives $200,000,000 per year from the U.S. government. So they’d better keep playing ball with Obama to keep the money, favors and special treatment flowing from Uncle Sam.
The Bible celebrates hospitality. The Bible says we should be welcoming to strangers, travelers, foreigners. This is what we are hearing from the pro-amnesty propaganda machine.
But hospitality and care is a far cry from saying the stranger, the traveler, the alien, the foreigner should be able to just move into your home — permanently.
We want to help the homeless. But should the homeless just be able to move into and take over your home — permanently?
What exactly is ”Comprehensive Immigration Reform” anyway?
Basically, it’s amnesty and pretty much citizenship for the illegal aliens who are here now, then secure the border later.
That’s the promise.
But we now see how well that works.
If people know they can get amnesty (and soon U.S. citizenship) simply by setting foot on American soil, border security can’t work. There’s always a way around, under, or over a border.
Amnesty undermines and destroys even the strongest, most secure border.
And without secure borders, we really aren’t a country anymore — just like if anyone can move into your home, you don’t really have a home.
Are you tired of throwing your shoes at the TV?
Now there’s a way for conservatives to get their movies funded without having to go through the Hollywood gatekeepers.
It’s through a process called “Crowd Funding.”
The pioneers of how to do this on the conservative side are filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.
Their latest project is a movie they are making about the abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer.
They are seeking to raise $2.1 million to make this movie.
If successful, this would make this the biggest “crowd funded” film ever made.
You can contribute to this important project here: www.gosnellmovie.com
This will not be a documentary – as their other projects have been.
Ann McElhinny says they will be hiring a top screenwriter, director, and actors.
The purpose of the movie is to show every American what an abortion really is.
Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murdering three babies who had been born alive my mistake in botched abortions. He killed these live babies by using scissors to sever their spinal cords.
The movie also aims to bypass the media blackout of the Dr. Gosnell serial murder case.
Dr. Gosnell is now serving consecutive life sentences for killing these live babies.
The logical contradiction, of course, is that if the baby had been killed a few minutes before birth, this would have been legal. Yet, the unborn baby would experience the same about of horrifying pain as the born baby experienced having her spinal cord severed with scissors.
Biologically and physiologically there is no difference between the newborn baby and the unborn baby a few minutes earlier. And there is no difference in the pain they suffer in being killed.
Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer are hoping the average viewer of their film will connect dots in their own mind to arrive at this conclusion.
If killing a baby a few minutes after she is born is murder under the law, why isn’t it murder under the law to kill that same baby when in the mother’s womb a few minutes earlier?
Another point the project makes is to highlight the bias of the media and entertainment industry.
While the trial of Dr. Gosnell was going on, the trial of Jodie Arias was also taking place.
Arias was on trial for killing one person. Her trial received blanket coverage on the media and 24/7 coverage on CNN’s Headline News channel. There has already been a movie made about Jodie Arias.
But hardly anyone has heard of Dr. Kermit Gosnell – who was convicted in 2013 of killing three babies with scissors after they were born, but who is believed to have killed thousands of born babies during his 30-year killing spree at his abortion clinic.
There was a media blackout of the Gosnell story. His conviction of these heinous murders of little babies was barely mentioned in passing. But the Jodie Arias trial received blanket media coverage.
McElhinny and McAleer have had “crowd funding” movie successes already, the best known being an award-winning documentary they created titled FrackNation about the enormous potential of fracking to make America energy independent.
That movie cost $212,000 to make, which they raised with donations by using a website called Kickstarter.com
Pro-Abortion Left Still Almost Manages to Block This Movie
What Kickstarter.com does is allow people with a dream to raise money for their creative projects – many of them independent films.
Unfortunately, Kickstarter rejected the Dr. Gosnell Movie project unless McElhinny and McAleer removed the description of how Dr. Gosnell would kill these born babies with scissors – even though this is exactly what he was convicted of doing.
“Abortion is sacred to the liberal-Left,” explains McElhinny. “It’s one thing to make a movie about Fracking. But if you make a movie about an abortionist who was convicted of being a serial killer, they can see what we are doing. This is sacred territory for the liberal-Left. They won’t stand for it. Abortion is the Left’s Holy Grail.”
Ann and Phelim Find Another Path
So McElhinny and McAleer took their Gosnell movie project to a rival site called indigogo.com that also enables “crowd funding” for independent movie projects.
Indiegogo did not block the project, as Kickstarter did. Perhaps the project slipped under their radar.
In just six days up on the site the Gosnell Movie has already raised $350,000.
So you can see how this might be a powerful method to raise money for your movie project.
The average contribution so far for the Gosnell Movie is about $70.
So this is also a way for the average American to have a direct impact on what America sees on the movie and TV screen and strike a blow against the Hollywood monopoly on entertainment — which is on the brink of no longer being a monopoly.
Of course, they still have a long way to go to raise the full $2.1 million budget. And they only have 45 days to do it. If they fail to raise the full $2.1 million budget they’ve set, all money is returned to the donors.
Those are the rules of the site.
It’s an ingenious system because it requires users of this site to set realistic budgets for their projects. And it guarantees the project will happen.
You can track in real time exactly how many contributions have come in minute by minute by going to www.gosnellmovie.com
The transparency of the process is what gives supporters confidence.
That’s the power of the “crowd funding” concept.
So McElhinny and McAleer set the bar high by setting a $2.1 million budget for their movie about Dr. Gosnell and his murders.
But they are also determined to make this a high-quality production that the average movie-watcher will want to watch.
“If the movie is not riveting to non-political young people, we’ll consider this project a failure,” says McElhinny. “We won’t change hearts and minds by preaching at people. We’ll change hearts and minds by telling powerful stories that make our points for us.”
That’s how Jesus communicated his message — not by scolding us, but by telling memorable stories, parables.
Every conservative and pro-life American should support this important project by going to www.gosnellmovie.com
This project is a model for how conservatives, Christians, pro-life Americans, and pro-freedom Americans can bypass the leftist Hollywood gatekeepers to raise money for our own movies.
We are losing America in large part because the liberal-Left dominates the movie and entertainment industry, so are shaping the popular culture.
McElhinny and McAleer are blazing a path that shows us how to fight back.
Contribute to their important project by going here: www.gosnellmovie.com
VIDEO: Did Andrew Breitbart (who had no known health problems) really die of ‘natural causes’ at age 43?
You decide after watching this video of Andrew’s speech to CPAC in February
At age 43, a life insurance policy for $1,00,000 would cost him about $100 a month.
In other words, the likliehood of Andrew Breitbart, at age 43, dying of “natural causes” is an extremely unlikely event.
BIG JOURNALISM: Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.
We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.
Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.
Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:
I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.
Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.
Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.
MAUREEN DAWD-NEW YORK TIMES: Times have been bad and sad, and The One did not turn out to be a messiah, just a mortal politician who ruefully jokes that his talent is hitting the “sweet spot” where he makes no one happy, neither allies nor opponents.
The man who became famous with a speech declaring that we were one America, not opposing teams of red and blue states, presides over an America more riven by blue and red than ever.
The man who came to Washington on a wave of euphoria has had a presidency with all the joy of a root canal, dragged down by W.’s recklessness and his own inability to read America’s panic and its thirst for a strong leader.
In an interview with Fareed Zakaria for this week’s Time cover story, the president is maddeningly naïve.
Asked about his cool, aloof style and his unproductive relationship with John Boehner, Obama replied: “You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties. And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof. The fact is, I’ve got a 13-year-old and 10-year-old daughter.”
SLUT WATCH: Veteran CBS News Anchor Bill Kurtis Says Sharon Bialek Was Former CBS Employee With a ‘Track Record’, That Roles ‘May Have Been Reversed’ in Car
And notice how fast this story is dying. Where is the documentation from the hotel proving her room was upgraded by Cain or the Restaurant Association? Whose credit card was used for that?
THE BLAZE: On his radio program Tuesday, Mark Levin aired a clip of veteran journalist and CBS anchor Bill Kurtis on WLS saying that Herman Cain’s accuser, Sharon Bialek, is a former CBS employee with a “track record.” Given her checkered past, a chuckling Kurtis posited that Bialek‘s and Cain’s roles in the alleged car-incident could even have been reversed.
Some of Kurtis’ observations on Bialek were as follows:
“She has a history.”
“There is a lot more to this story.”
“I can assure you that there will be far more to this story.”
“Let’s put Herman or Sharon in the car and say their roles may even have been reversed, given her track record here.”
Bialek worked for CBS radio station WCKG from 2006-2007.
Listen to the clip below:
Levin brings up a point worth considering: Why is this story not making its rounds in the mainstream media, and why are voices like Kurtis’ being confined to select talk radio stations? Kurtis’ segment aired on Monday and thus far, precious few news outlets are delving into Bialek’s questionable history.
AUDIO: Rush Limbaugh was brilliant on the media lynching of Herman Cain . . . and why it’s backfiring
Set aside an hour to enjoy this — Rush at his absolute best
RUSH: I am starting to sense it. I am starting to see it. When I sense it, when I see it, it is probably true. That’s been my track record. I think I detect the media heading into damage control on the Herman Cain story. A lot of media are. This day five now, and still nobody knows what he did. Not a single media outlet can report what he did! Some are even suggesting that The Politico had no business running this story. These are other journalists who are beginning to say this. … The media is also in damage control over the Occupy Oakland riots the night before last. I mean, yesterday the media was trying to pretend the Oakland protests were peaceful; the very model of a love fest, but now the truth is coming out along with some of the pictures and they’re switching over to damage control mode — and they’re doing the same thing in the Herman Cain story.
Really, folks, five days now, and nobody knows what he did. Think of all the news stories there have been, think of The Politico and how they got this ball rolling, and after five days there has yet to be a report what he did. Nobody knows still. Five days! As Wes Pruden, former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, points out when he ran the Washington Times newsroom: If somebody like The Politico reporters would have brought this story to him, he woulda thrown ‘em down the steps — and if they survived that, he would have fired them. (paraphrased exchange) “You’re telling me you want my newspaper to publish this rotgut? What do you got? There’s nothing here! I want names, places, activities, things that happened. There’s nothing here!”
“No, we want to run this, and we want Cain to respond to it. We want him to provide the information.” A lot of even seasoned journalists don’t like this. I’ve got sound bites you can tell they’re getting edgy because they’re getting all upset at me playing the race card in reverse on these guys. The reverse race card works every time it’s tried when I play it and it’s got them all ticked off. So we’ve got that to do. Here’s Washington Post, ABC poll: “70% of Republicans say the Cain allegations don’t matter.” Can I tell you…? Folks, behind the closed doors of the mainstream media outlets, that poll (because it’s in the Washington Post) I can’t tell you how that ticks ‘em off! This was supposed to destroy Herman Cain, and I’ll tell you something else.
It was supposed to destroy every other Republican by shifting the focus to all of them in this matter; getting them to comment, to not comment, to pile on Cain or what have you. I’ll tell you what: There’s a question out there that I really think needs to be asked, because the way the media is doing their backtrack on this — the way they’re doing damage control — is the same thing as yesterday. They’re starting to focus on how “poorly” Herman Cain is handling this, which of course we (on the cutting edge) were on that aspect of the story yesterday. “He’s doing such a lousy job handling this.” How about a poll on how good a job Obama’s doing handling the economy? What do you think a poll like that would look like? Well, we already have that poll, and it’s called, “What do you think of the direction of the country: good, bad, worse, horrible, what?”
Only 16 to 30%, depending on the poll, think the country’s headed in the right direction. So on what do you want to judge a candidate or a political person’s qualifications? On how he’s handling a no-name, no-information, empty “scandal” (with quotation marks around it), or how he’s handling the US economy? As I said yesterday: I don’t care, folks. No matter what happens here, every Republican candidate for the nomination — every one of them — is so superior to Barack Obama, it’s laughable. Of course the Drive-Bys know that, and Democrats know that. But when you have the Washington Post and ABC News in their joint poll saying that 70% of Republicans don’t care about the Herman Cain allegations, what that can be translated to is the following:
“Politico, you failed. You attempted, along with others in the mainstream media, to take out the guy, and you failed. Your influence isn’t what you thought it was. Alana Goodman at Commentary magazine writes, “Basically, the entire Washington media could have collectively called in sick all week, and it wouldn’t have made a difference – at least not for 70 percent of Republicans. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll, one of the first to be taken post-scandal, reports: ‘Seven in 10 Republicans say reports that [Herman] Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s — allegations which have been stiffly rebutted by Cain’s campaign — do not matter when it comes to picking a candidate.’”
Could it be…? In determining why this result is what it is, you could say, “Well, maybe people don’t care as much about sexual harassment anymore. Maybe people recognize what it’s always been: A tool for advancing liberalism,” or maybe people are just fed up with the media in its modern incarnation, particularly Republicans. We know that’s true. We know that most Republicans, even if they’re RINO Republicans, are fed up with the way the media is going about conducting business these days. Herman Cain’s manager, Mark Block, was on Fox this morning, American Newsroom. He was on there with Martha MacCallum and he said this is the last day he’s gonna talk about this. He said the media and everybody has turned Washington into a cesspool, and we are not going to swim in that cesspool anymore. We are not gonna play by the rules that the media has established.
Block said, “The fact of the matter is The Politico article if it was held up to the same standards as the code of ethics — of the code of ethics for journalism the people involved would be fired.” This is Mark Block, who is a target of the media this week as being the architect of the guy who’s “mishandling” this; who’s advising Cain poorly, making Cain look like an idiot. This Block guy, he’s the guy that puffed on a cigarette in the TV ad. They hate the guy! So he finally has awakened. He also said that the Cain campaign’s “considering its legal options and may sue Politico over the as yet unsubstantiated allegations,” and that’s what they are. Five days now, folks. Do you realize, in one day we knew what Clinton had done with Lewinsky — and we knew that Newsweek spiked the story and that the estimable Matt Drudge ran it.
We knew on day one what Clinton did, and he was advised to go out there and lie about it, and it didn’t work. Five days running, and we still don’t know what Herman Cain did and there doesn’t appear to be anybody in the media who can tell us. The media is openly begging for the women to “come forward and tell their stories.” Wait a minute, don’t you know? How could you run the story without knowing what the women were gonna say? You need the women to come forward and tell the story? Why can’t you just report it, if you know it? Why is it incumbent upon the women — who don’t want to come forward, apparently? So that’s where we are on that story.
RUSH: The Politico with another story. I’ll tell you, this bunch is the most sex obsessed people I’ve seen since I don’t know when. Imagine if Ken Starr had been this obsessed! There’s a big, long story here by Kent Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns (three people), and I can tell you what it says in six words: More anonymous Cain details from The Politico. More anonymous details. This bunch is positively sex obsessed, and now it’s in damage control mode. “Herman Cain flatly denies the most serious allegation facing him … but POLITICO has learned new details making clear there were urgent discussions of the woman’s accusations at top levels of the National Restaurant Association within hours of when the incident was alleged to have occurred.” What’s new about that? We all knew that.
“The new details — which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s — put the woman’s account even more sharply at odds with Cain’s emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.” What “new details”? We still don’t know what they are! I’m not kidding when I say “anonymous details.” Not anonymous sources. We’ve got anonymous details now make up the bulk of a story! If I didn’t know better I would say journalism had created a new standard. Anonymous sources has now morphed into anonymous details. “In recent days sources … have offered new details of the incident.
“The woman in question, roughly 30 years old at the time and working in the National Restaurant Association’s government affairs division,” we know all that, “told two people directly at the time that Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group’s events, according to the sources familiar with the incident. She was livid and lodged a verbal complaint with an NRA board member that same night, these sources said,” but still we don’t know what! Remember, the Duke lacrosse case? Seasoned reporters hounded those kids, based on no evidence — none, zero. “Seasoned reporters,” and many of the faculty at Duke signed all kinds of whatever they were, supporting the accuser, condemning the lacrosse team members; and remember how that turned out?
It was a total, fabricated, made-up story that was believed simply because it fit stereotypes of the left, it fit the narrative, it fit a template — and then there’s this. This is back to The Politico, from Jonathan Martin. This scandal now, folks, really intensifies. “Joel Bennett, the attorney for one of the women who complained about Herman Cain at the National Restaurant Association said Friday that his client’s settlement was dated in September of 1999 and signed by the trade group’s general counsel but not Cain. Cain had already left the organization by then, before his three-year term was up…” So when was the settlement signed? 9-9-9! September of ’99!
What will the media make of this? The settlement date, September of 1999, equals “9-9-9,” the same name of Herman Cain’s economic plan. Somebody needs to call the dethroned Dutch sociologist and have him make something of this for us. To the audio sound bites we go, and we are… What did I tell you, start number five? Starting at number five, last night on PMSNBC Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson was on to discuss the Americans for Herman Cain ad. And he was asked, “Okay, obviously that was Limbaugh’s voice, and they’re calling it ‘a high-tech lynching.’ They’re playing the race card on this. What do you think of this, Gene?”
ROBINSON: It’s interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card (chortling) when I write about racism and its continuing presence in American society are awfully quick to play that same card, duh, when they think it’s to their advantage. Uh, I assume that means that Rush is now gonna change his position on affirmative action, on a whole lot of other things in this race that’s involved. I guess not. I guess probably not.
RUSH: What is he babbling about? Does somebody want to translate that for me? They can’t handle it when their own technique is thrown back at ‘em, when their own technique is turned on ‘em, they just can’t stand it. “It’s interesting that people like Limbaugh who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card when I write about racism are awfully quick to play that same card when they think it’s to their advantage.” I’m doing nothing based on any advantage whatsoever. I’m simply describing what I see, and there’s no question that this is being done to a black conservative and that the left doesn’t like black conservatives. The left doesn’t like Hispanic conservatives. The left doesn’t like minorities who are conservative, who show an ability to rise to the top of any organization they’re in.
The left doesn’t like it. (interruption) Well, that’s right. I have crossed a line because the charge of racism is theirs exclusively to make. No one’s allowed to make that charge, and here I come making the charge, and they can’t deal with it. It hits ‘em right upside the face and they don’t know what to do, except call foul. “You can’t do that! That’s what we do. You’re not allowed to do that! You can’t call us racists! You’re the racists! You can’t do that especially now ’cause it’s true. You can’t call us out like that. You’re gonna blow up our whole game if you keep doing this. You gotta shut up! We’re gonna start trying to make fun of you and now maybe say you’re in favor of affirmative action!” What an odd connection to make there, but it didn’t stop. Different show, MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell talking to a Politico writer (sigh), Maggie Haberman about me.
The question: “Rush Limbaugh’s out there saying these women are lying.”
I have not said that. Has somebody produced to me where I’ve said that? I have never said the women are lying. All I’ve said is, “We don’t know what happened,” and on day five we don’t know what happened because the accusers in the media have not told us what happened. I did say, “What if there’s another version of this?” I have pointed out instances where women have lied about this, but I didn’t accuse these women of it. So, anyway, the premise of the question is flawed, but nevertheless the question was asked. “Rush Limbaugh’s out there saying these women are lying. Rush Limbaugh — who doesn’t know who they are, who believed every single word of every
female accusation ever sent the direction of Bill Clinton or any Democrat for that matter but especially Clinton — firmly believes these unnamed women are lying.”
HABERMAN: In terms of the Rush Limbaugh piece of it, I think that you’re seeing, you know, generally a lot of rallying in the conservative media around Herman Cain. There has been a lot of criticism about the fact that this was reported on; uhhh, a lot of defense of Herman Cain, a lot of insistence that it couldn’t be true. Some of his loudest support has come from that direction.
RUSH: It’s not support of Herman Cain, by the way, although I can see where the media might think that. It is not support of Herman Cain so much as it is we’ve all had it with your tactics in the media. We’ve had it with the double standard. We’ve had it with people like you elevating Bill Clinton to superstar status. We’ve had it with you looking the other way during the Tawana Brawley lies. We’ve had it with you in the Duke lacrosse story. We’ve had it with you trying to cover up for John Edwards! We’ve had it with you lionizing Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, of “waitress sandwich” fame at La Brasserie in Washington. We’ve had it with you holding up as national heroes reprobates like this, and we’ve had it with you trying to take out our people on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever.
We still don’t know what you think Cain did — and until you can tell us, as journalists, with incontrovertible proof, we’re gonna doubt you because you have given us every reason in the world to not trust your reporting, because it is biased against us and our side and our people. That is inarguable! That is as obvious and honest as the sun comes up. Even Clinton has given up trying to deny the accusations against him. Clinton doesn’t even deny them anymore. He knows he doesn’t have to. You’ve made him a hero, and you continue to make him a hero by telling us that Cain is not handling this the right way, and we know who you think did handle it the right way: Slick Willie!
Bimbo eruption teams! Send Carville and whoever else out to destroy Ken Starr as a sex pervert, to destroy Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey as nothing but a bunch of trailer park trash. You supposed feminists in the media loooved Bill Clinton and wished he would come to your bedroom at night as he trashes these women who made these true allegations about him; and you come along with innuendo and five days of smears, and we don’t even know what he’s guilty of! We’re standing up for our side. We are standing up for each other. We’re circling the wagons around us. If you people were trying this against any of the candidates with the same lack of information that you’ve got, it would be the same thing.
I sit here and I wonder — you heard her sound bite — is she really this closed off and insulated from what this is all about? Does she really think this is just the conservative media defending Cain because he’s a conservative? Does she really think that even if Cain did it, we’d still be treating this the way we’re treating it? Sometimes I wonder. I see evidence every day that leads me to believe these people are closed off and walled off in a little small area that they’ve called their own reality, and it’s as distant from the real world as anyplace you could get. So it could well be that Ms. Haberman is clueless, genuinely clueless about what this is all about — which is to our advantage, by the way.
RUSH: I even remember one time even defended Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton (hero to the left) told a joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner and said (impression), “Hey, did you hear? Huh huh. Did you hear Rush defended Janet Reno on his program the other night? It’s only because she was being attacked by a black guy.” The media in the room did two things. There was a (gasp!) and then wild laughter as the president of the United States went racist. They applauded it. Ms. Haberman, we don’t know the details of this story because you refuse to publish the details, and I’m beginning to think the details of the story might get in the way of the rest of your agenda. So the details are gonna remain anonymous in the Herman Cain story. Here is a montage of the Drive-By Media going full bore on Cain’s real problem.
PIERS MORGAN: Is Herman Cain handling this very badly?
JONATHAN KARL: …Cain handled this so badly.
CHUCK TODD: (outdoor noise) This is a campaign that is falling apart. Not ready to handle this at all.
LARRY O’DONNELL: How to handle one of these stories?
CLARANCE PAGE: Not the way to handle this kind of situation.
J.C. WATTS: He didn’t handle it right.
JOHN KING: (outdoor noise) …how a candidate and his team handle pressure, handle crisis.
ERIC BOLLING: It’s no way to handle this.
RICHARD STENGEL: Voters are looking at how candidates handle matters.
DANA PERINO: You have ten days to get ready for something like this; this is how you handle it?
RUSH: That’s Dana Perino, by the way, joining in from the Bush team, jumping all over Herman Cain. I wonder how many of these journalists could take 30 seconds of what they dish out? It’s happened now and then and they all start crying wolf. “Wait a minute, you can’t do it! Who I am doesn’t matter! I’m not the story! I’m the journalist, I’m the reporter. You — you can’t — you can’t delve into my life and find out how many affairs I’ve had and whether I’ve smoked dope, You can’t do it!”
Oh, we can’t? Well, we’re gonna do that.
“You can’t! I’m the journalist! You can’t! It doesn’t matter! I’m not the story!”
They can’t handle 30 seconds of what they dish out. Jan Crawford, Early Show, CBS today, is stunned that Cain continues to do well.
CRAWFORD: People are really sticking behind Herman Cain, his supporters are. That’s reflected in a lot of the reporting that we’ve been doing, talking to voters, particularly out in Iowa; where supporters of Cain say they just think this is going to fade away. They think these charges are, quote, “sketchy,” one person told us, and it’s just not really that pertinent; and, interestingly, the campaign is still — still! — raising lots of money. And then, finally, I think look at talk radio. I mean you know that is very important with conservative voters. The conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, they are really rallying to his defense, and that could end up being a huge help to him if they stay with him.
RUSH: You know, folks, I apologize. That bite I did not read the entire transcript. I did not know I was also mentioned in that bite. I don’t… (interruption) Well, I know it’s my show, but I’m not playing these sound bites just ’cause they mention my name. I just didn’t read the transcript far enough to know that she did. Where are the calls for the Restaurant Association to release the results of their investigation, which Cain says cleared him? You know, the media will not even mention that? The media won’t even join this call for the NRA to release the results of the investigation. They just want the women to come forward and the women don’t want to. I wonder what’s up with that.
BEN SAYS: I’ve stopped watching FOX News because the only conservatives on the network now are Hannity and Cavuto. The others are just talking heads. So FOX has lost me. In fact, I’ve canceled my cable service completely. I can learn what I need to know from the Internet. I also have a subscription to Rush. So I can hear what he has to say anytime I want. That’s good enough. I’ve found I’m much more productive professionally without having TV at all. Plus I just can’t stand sitting through all the ads. I can still plug in a movie if I want.
HOWARD KURTZ-DAILY BEAST: It was part political spectacle, part American Idol, part YouTube extravaganza, a pure Roger Ailes production—and the latest sign that the Fox News chairman is quietly repositioning America’s dominant cable-news channel.
Hours before last week’s presidential debate in Orlando, Ailes’s anchors sat in a cavernous back room, hunched over laptops, and plotted how to trap the candidates. Chris Wallace said he would aim squarely at Rick Perry’s weakness: “How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration? Then I go to Rick Santorum: is Perry too soft?”
Tucker simply reported Mike Tyson’s vile comment about Sarah Palin. Tucker showed what an animal Tyson really is.
Most newsworthy was the laughter by the radio show hosts when Tyson made his comments. If a conservative had made these comments about Hillary Clinton, surely this would have been front page news in the New York Times. That was Tucker’s point.
BEN SAYS: The only fault I see, maybe, with what Tucker did is that it raised the level of publicity for this scurrillous book by that creep Joe McGuinness who was stalking Sarah Palin. It probably would have been best to ignore Tyson and the creepy book. McGuinness has produced no evidence for his claim that NBA player Glenn Rice had some kind of relationship with Sarah Palin in 1987 (before she married Todd). He claims Sarah was a basketball groupie back in those days. He also claims she’s a racist. Tough to reconcile those two contradictory claims. McGuiness has an irrational hatred of Sarah. Who knows why?
McGinness just repeats hearsay and rumor throughout his book. Even liberal news organizations give his book zero credibility. So perhaps Tucker should have just ignored Tyson, who has nothing of value to say and is a pathetic creature deserving more of pity than scorn. It’s a close call — defensible either way. Greta got herself overly worked up, bringing yet even more undeserved publicity to McGinness’ disgusting book.
JEFFREY LORD-AMERICAN SPECTATOR: In case you missed it, Fox News colleagues and 20-year friends Greta Van Susteren and Tucker Carlson have been going at it — in front of the cameras. The cause: a decision by Carlson’s website the Daily Caller to report some outrageously disgusting comments on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made by ex-boxing great Mike Tyson.
Here’s the Daily Caller story that launched the ruckus, with an editorial note added after the story ran. The actual recording of Tyson, made in an interview with the ESPN Las Vegas affiliate KWWN, is heard by scrolling a bit to the video screen at the bottom. Here’s the Greta-Tucker smack down as seen by Fox viewers.
While putting this on camera invited the rest of us into this, and since we’re big Greta fans in this corner — she is one of today’s peerless journalists who consistently is getting the story of the moment, getting it right and getting it in detail — this is painful to say.
Greta Van Susteren is wrong. Mystifyingly so.
Jon Stewart hammers Ed Schultz for his dishonest video clip edit in effort to smear Rick Perry as racist
It appears that Ed Schultz might be the real racist.