WND Columnist Repeats Misleading Attack on Pelosi Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Feb. 23 WorldNetDaily column by Chrissy Satterfield takes as her inspiration (aside from "my favorite talk radio host, the 'Titan of Truth,' Michael Savage") Judicial Watch's attack on Nancy Pelosi use of military aircraft in her role as House speaker. Her main complaint is that Pelosi's family members have "hitched a ride or two on congressional flights."
Of course, as we've detailed, Judicial Watch's attack on Pelosi is highly misleading, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of flights arranged through Pelosi's office were congressional delegations that more often than not included Republican members of Congress -- something Pelosi's Republican predecessor, Dennis Hastert, also did.
But Satterfield is less interested in telling the truth than insulting Pelosi, with references to face lifts and Botox. Not terribly surprising, is it?
Kincaid Sides With CPAC Gay-Basher Topic: Accuracy in Media
It's completely unsurprising that Cliff Kincaid would lionize Ryan Sorba, the activist known for his anti-gay rant at CPAC, and he does just that in his Feb. 22 Accuracy in Media column. After all, he agrees with Sorba that gays shouldn't be permitted in CPAC because, well, they're gay.
Kincaid defends Sorba's rant by claiming he was "provoked by a speaker who preceded him," who "went out of his way to use valuable time from the podium to thank the American Conservative Union, the main CPAC organizer, for making the controversial decision to approve GOProud's participation."
Kincaid goes on to laud Sorba as "the author of the book, The Born Gay Hoax" -- even though all that apparently exists of this work at this point is an unfinished, unpublished manuscript posted at that other noted nest of anti-gay rants, MassResistance.
This being Kincaid, his pathological anti-gay sentiment takes over his piece, signaled by his lament that "the 'banning' of homosexuality is not realistically possible at this stage in the United States because the Supreme Court has effectively legalized it." Kincaid goes on to:
Oppose repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell because, he asks, "how will open homosexuals in the U.S. military be greeted on Muslim lands where homosexuality is still illegal?"
Bash GOProud's criticism of the anti-gay Uganda law, writing, "Under these "gay conservatives," one can imagine gay soldiers being deployed to overthrow 'homophobic' regimes."
Baselessly insist yet again that the purpose of the anti-gay Uganda law is "trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and protect traditional moral values by toughening laws against homosexuality," failing yet again to acknowledge the simple facts that 1) the Uganda law, as it currently stands, would allow punishing mere homosexual activity with the death penalty, and 2) HIV transmission in Uganda is historically been mostly through heterosexual contact.
Try to put a patriotic spin on gay-bashing, claiming that "the founding fathers regarded homosexual sodomy as a crime against nature and believed it should be outlawed and punished severely."
Drop yet another reference to "Rachel Maddow, the lesbian host of an MSNBC-TV show."
Is AIM president Don Irvine pleased with Kincaid's hijacking of his group into a virulently anti-gay group?
UPDATE: Kincaid's column is promoted onthe AIM front page with this picture:
Is this what Kincaid thinks gays serving openly in the military will lead to?
A Feb. 22 CNSNews.com article by Pete Winn stated that "College professors are more likely than the average person to believe that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant today -- and to think that America is a corrupting influence on good people, according to a new study." The poll was conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which Winn described only as "an educational organization based in Wilmington, Del."
In fact, ISI is a conservative activist organization that has declared America is "on a slippery slope to socialism" because "the university is dominated by liberal professors." At no point does Winn identify ISI's ideology.
Perhaps the disclaimer at the end of Winn's article is a clue to that non-disclosure: "CNSNews.com Editor-in-Chief Terence P. Jeffrey is a visiting fellow at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and was involved in the preparation of the ISI report."
WND Ratchets Up War on Glenn Beck Topic: WorldNetDaily
Earlier this month, WorldNetDaily began lashing out at Glenn Beck for ridiculing birthers (like WND editor Joseph Farah). WND has been stepping up the battle in recent days.
Farah penned yet another column on the issue on Feb. 17, complaining that "From Glenn Beck to Andrew Breitbart to Conservative Political Action Conference organizers to social climbing bloggers with little actual audience, some of the right have becoming increasingly hostile to continued calls for Barack Obama to release documents that would prove his eligibility and provide the transparency he promised with regard to his travels, health history, schooling, etc." Farah again lies that all he cares about is "pursuit of the truth without fear or favor."
This was followed by a more direct Feb. 22 attack on Beck, which carried the headline, "Meet kinder, gentler Glenn Beck: New 'global warming' believer?" It summarizes a USA Weekend interview with Beck in which he said that he supports the idea of global warming and "thinks it could be caused partly by man's activity." Perhaps even more unforgivable in WND's eyes, "Beck's personal publicist, Matt Hiltzik, is a Democratic power player who helped get Hillary Rodham Clinton elected to the U.S. Senate."
WND seems to be unaware that this link to Hiltzik was revealed months ago -- last October, by the Washington Post. We don't recall WND mentioning it then. Of course, Beck hadn't yet violated WND's sensibilities by criticizing birthers.
As WND alienates its pool of supporters one by one -- not to mention any journalistic credibility it has left -- with its Javert-like pursuit of Joseph Farah's new Vince Foster, you have to wonder how this can be a sustainable business model. Farah will have to hoodwink folks into buying a lot of birther trinkets in order to make this venture worthwhile.
New Article: Chelsea Schilling's Shilling Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily reporter has racked up an impressive list of misleading claims and falsehoods -- none of which have been corrected. Read more >>
Kessler's Very Convenient CPAC Award From One Of His Favorite Sources Topic: Newsmax
A Feb. 20 Newsmax article announced that Newsmax's Ronald Kessler "was given the first Robert Novak Journalist of the Year Award on Friday at the 37th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)."
Dave Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, whose foundation runs CPAC, presented the award to Kessler at CPAC’s Ronald Reagan Banquet, where former Congressman J.C. Watts, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and others spoke to more than 2,000 attendees.
"Ron was recognized this year because of the quality of his writing, reporting and the hard work he puts in to covering Washington," said Keene. "He is always there, always fair and is one reporter who adheres to standards that are all too frequently violated or ignored by his colleagues."
Kessler won the award based on voting by the 96 co-sponsors of CPAC.
It's unclear whether Kessler's award has anything to do with the fact that Kessler has repeatedly quoted Keene in his articles. For instance:
for his part, Kessler made some dubious claims in his acceptance speech, asserting that "really is fair and balanced." As we detailed the last time Kessler made this claim, that is utterly false.
Kessler also suggested that Newsmax is fair and balanced as well because "runs stores [sic] that are critical of Republicans as well as Democrats." That may be true, though Newsmax's criticism of Republicans usually centers on them being not conservative enough. More often than not, Newsmax is eager to defend Republicans while ignoring relevant facts, as it recently did for Mike Huckabee.
For his part, Kessler reciprocated the logrolling award by penning a pair of fawningarticles about CPAC.
Bozell: Obama Czars Are 'Maggots' Topic: Media Research Center
A Feb. 22 NewsBusters post highlights MRC chief Brent Bozell's speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference:
"Van Jones was a story that was broken by a blogger," Bozell said. "Say that after me - God bless bloggers, God bless bloggers, God bless bloggers. Now this blogger writes a story about one of the Obama czars. Now these czars, these guys are dangerous for all sorts of reasons. They're not elected. They're not confirmed. And they're not even announced. You just hear about them. They're like maggots. You pick up a rock and you find a czar."
Aside from his dehumanization of Obama administration officials by labeling them "maggots," Bozell is factually wrong about czars not being confirmed. Several of them have been confirmed by the Senate, while other positions had counterparts in the Bush administration, which we don't recall Bozell complaining about.
WND's Massie: Gays Are Filthy And Violent Topic: WorldNetDaily
Mychal Massie cynically claims in his Feb. 23 WorldNetDaily column that "It's not my intention or desire to dehumanize homosexuals." Of course, that's exactly what he does:
Why are the costs of health risks associated with homosexuality treated differently than the cost concerns of tobacco and fast food? A 2006 Dutch study found that homosexual men more frequently used mental and somatic health care than heterosexual men – and lesbian/bisexual women more frequently used mental health care than heterosexual women. It also found a higher rate of health care use among homosexual and bisexual persons compared to heterosexuals. (See: Soc Sci Med, Vol. 63 No. 8; October 2006; pp. 2022-2030.)
Timothy J. Daily, Ph. D., wrote, "Hollywood and the media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy and well-adjusted homosexual. The reality is at polar opposites to the caricature – homosexual and lesbian relationships are typically characterized by instability, promiscuity and unhealthy and risky sex practices, factors that greatly increase the incidence of serious and incurable sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). …" ("The negative health effects of homosexuality," Family Research Council)
The New York Blade News, a homosexual newspaper, reported, "Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that [homosexual] men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. … scientists believe that increased numbers of sexually transmitted disease cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing of [homosexual] men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness." (Bill Roundy; "STD Rates on the Rise"; Dec. 15, 2005)
Daily rightly acknowledges that which homosexual activists would rather the public be socially unaware of, i.e., "Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships."
"A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners." (See also: Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, "Sexual Preferences"; Bloomington Indiana Press, 1981.)
Homosexuality can be dressed and presented as being as normal and natural as rain in spring – but it isn't. Comprehensive medical studies found diseases, such anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, human papilloma virus, Isospera belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B&C and syphilis, with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse.
It's a safe bet that children in grade school aren't being told about "gay bowl disease," nor other diseases associated with these aberrant sexual practices. School children aren't told, and most adults don't consider the effect that the practice of homosexuality has on the homosexual's physical health, mental health and lifespan. Studies show that homosexuals have a lifespan that is, incredibly, 20 years less than normal heterosexuals.
Homosexual groups and advocates attempt to portray commonality in STDs between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The truth is that, according to the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis "appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with men."
The incidence of violent abuse is extremely high in lesbian relationships, and in homosexual relationships studies have found the violence to be double that of heterosexual males.
This isn't "dehumanizing" gays? If you have a history of smearing gays as Massie does, it isn't.
CNS Falsely Suggests Obama Health Care Bill Exceeds Hyde Amendment Topic: CNSNews.com
A Feb. 22 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr claimed that President Obama's health care proposal "mostly mirrors the Senate bill and, in particular, would allow for tax dollars to be used to fund health plans that cover abortion."
In fact, as Media Matters details, the Senate bill follows the Hyde Amendment by not using federal funds for abortion. Rather, in health plans in the proposed health insurance exchange that offer coverage for abortion, premiums collected to cover abortion are segregated from other federal funds -- a procedure permitted by federal law.
Tom Blumer, One-Man Pro-Toyota Army Topic: NewsBusters
Tom Blumer has moved on from formulating conspiracy theories about the government's treatment of Toyota to being a full-throated Toyota apologist. He cranked out a series of blog posts in the middle of the night in an attempt to push back on accusations that in an internal presentation, Toyota listed as a "win" successfully negotiating with the federal government a limited recall of vehicles that saved the company millions of dollars.
In his first post, Blumer derided the Detroit News and Associated Press for basing their stories on an incomplete document. He then asserted that, despite the fact that the presentation documents were in English, the Japanese interpret "win" differently than Americans do:
Oh, and did I say "cultural ignorance"? Yes I did -- breathtaking cultural ignorance. Based on my limited knowledge, the two reporters' assertions didn't make sense. I have confirmed that instinct with someone who has much broader knowledge and experience. This person's college degree is in Asian Studies, and has been to Japan several times, visiting several different areas of the country, including Nagoya, where Toyota is headquartered.
Shepardson and Thomas don't understand that the presence of Inaba as the most senior person at the meeting means that it was conducted under Japanese cultural and behavioral norms. That's important, because in Japanese culture a person simply does not "brag" or "boast" about anything -- ever. In fact, what a person regularly does in talking about himself or herself is generally expected to be self-deprecating, lest there be any conceivable inference of what others might perceive as unforgivably rude bragging.
Pursuant to the norms of such a meeting, a "win" in Japanese culture is not what Americans would think it is. It most assuredly does not mean "a victory over the government," or "a successful evasion of regulations, safety be damned" or whatever Shepardson's and Thomas's fevered minds think they are seeing in the word. It simply means "favorable development" -- nothing more, nothing less. The supporting facts that are included are thus emotion-free observations. There are no "brags" or "boasts" emanating from anywhere in these documents, which is to be expected, because anyone doing so would be taking on a substantial career risk. I guess they didn't cover that in the diversity training courses at the Detroit News or the AP.
Being a good conspiracy theorist, Blumer made sure to inject some of that as well:
Finally, did I forget to mention that the U.S. Congress that will "grill" (Shepardson's word) Toyota's CEO this week represents an entity that controls two of the company's three largest U.S. competitors? Or that those two competitors had over 8.9 million vehicles recalled from 2004-2008, but from all appearances have had almost none since they became de facto wards of the state?
An hour and a half later, Blumer wrote a post adding Politico to the offending news outlets reporting the story, insisting that Toyota is doing nothing beyond "playing normal self-defense" and thatthe feds are conducting "a smear campaign orchestrated at higher levels intended to cut the legs out from under a company that 'just happens' to be the largest foreign-owned competitor of government-controlled General Motors and Chrysler."
Three hours later, Blumer had another post complaining that other media outlets had picked up the story.
Finally, two hours after that, Blumer howled that the Department of Transportation spokesperson who had been talking to news outlets about Toyota was "an Obama spokeswoman in Ohio" who "registered to vote in the Buckeye State, even though she was not a resident, and apparently obtained an early-voting ballot" (though the story Blumer links to to support this claim notes that McCain staffers had similar issues after it was made clear that temporary residents couldn't vote in Ohio). This, to blumer, equates to having an "ACORN-y Background." Blumer concluded with this rant:
So the world's largest car manufacturer, employing over 300,000 worldwide and paying untold billions annually in income, property, unemployment, and other taxes, is being lectured about product safety by a known vote fraudster who has been rewarded for her misbehavior with a cushy government job, while the vast majority of the establishment press has no way to make the association because it barely covered Ohio's 2008 vote-fraud story in the first place.
Only in Barack Obama's America.
At no point did Blumer mention that problems with Toyota vehicles date back at least a decade and would be facing these recall issues regardless of who currently owns GM and Chrysler. But that would have interfered with his little conspiracy theory.
Newsmax is back in the Bernard Kerik defense business.
After months of attempting to rehabilitate Kerik's repuatation after being charged with corruption, then going silent upon Kerik's guilty plea to several of those charges, Kerik's sentencing to four years in prison on the charges has ignited a new attempt to rehabilitate Kerik's reputation.
As we noted, Newsmax's new rehab effort began by highlighting a Huffington Post article claiming that Kerik was the victim of overzealous prosecutors. This is followed up by none other than Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy in a Feb. 21 column.
Ruddy curiously complains that "Justice is often unfair and excessive toward the famous." Coming from a guy who ranted about Bill Clinton's ties to the "Dixie Mafia" and promoted the discredited likes of Linda Tripp, that's rich.
Ruddy also promotes a previous Newsmax article lionizing Kerik as something at helps to explain the "complicate" Kerik case. But as we detailed, that article is little more than a fluff piece in which authors Dave Eberhart and Jim Meyers hide facts in order to make Kerik look good.
Ruddy does some of his own whitewashing here, complaining that the judge in the case "threw [Kerik] in jail" prior to his scheduled trial. "The reason? One of Kerik’s attorneys had sent an e-mail to a Washington Times reporter on the case."
Ruddy doesn't mention that it wasn't just any ordinary email. As the New York Times details, the email -- sent by a lawyer who ran Kerik's legal defense fund - contained "information that indicated he was privy to sealed court papers." Further, it appeared the lawyer was forwarding an email sent by Kerik himself -- a violation in a consent decree in the case prohibiting Kerik from revealing confidential information."
In his lengthy defense, Ruddy fails to disclose that he was close enough to Kerik to give him space on Newsmax for a regular column.
Ruddy's defense is joined at Newsmax by a Feb. 22 article highlighting Geraldo Rivera's defense of Kerik and description of the judge that sentenced him as a "hanging judge."
Interesting how some people are for law and order -- unless one of their buddies is on the receiving end.
WND's Unruh Misleads About Nutritional Supplement Case Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've previously detailed how WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh has a bad habit of telling only one side of the story, despite his touted previous experience as a reporter for the Associated Press, which typically does not tolerate such bias.
Unruh exhibits that bias again in a Feb. 21 WND article on a "Christian nutrition ministry" called Daniel Chapter One, which has faced sanctions from the Federal Trade Commissionfor making unsupported claims about the nutritional supplements it sells. Unruh quotes only attorneys for Daniel Chapter One who, according to Unruh, "responded to a series of written questions submitted by WND." Unruh doesn't quote any FTC official in the article or even substantively directly quote any FTC documents on the case, even though the FTC has posted numerous documents regarding the DanielChapter One case on its website. Further, Unruh made no apparent attempt to contact the FTC for a response to the charges made in the article.
Unruh misleadingly asserts that it's not until "after the full penalties of being found guilty are scheduled to apply" that "the principals will be able to present their first defense to the charges." In fact, theFTCrecordcontainsseveraldocuments by Daniel Chapter One's attorneys responding to the FTC that include what most people would call a defense.
Unruh also curiously fails to offer specifics about the claims Daniel Chapter One made that drew the FTC complaint, framing the issue as about "how the federal government demands studies of nutritional products such as vitamins be done before the products are advertised to consumers." In fact, in a September 2008 FTC press release summing up its case, the FTCstated that Daniel Chapter One has made "deceptive and false claims that these products effectively prevent, treat, and cure cancer" and that "one of their herbal formulations mitigates the side effects of radiation and chemotherapy."
The original FTC administrative complaint goes on to state that Daniel Chapter One claimed one product "inhibits angiogenesis -- the formation of new blood vessels" which "can stop tumor growth," that another product "battles cancer," and that yet another product can serve "as an adjunct to cancer therapy." Even though Daniel Chapter One's claims that its products treat cancer is central to the FTC's actions, the word "cancer" appears nowhere in Unruh's article -- nor did it appear in an August 2008 WND article Unruh wrote on the case.
Unruh features "Herb Titus, a key constitutional expert working on the Daniel Chapter One case," complaining that the FTC wants "someone marketing dietary supplements must substantiate any health-related claim with 'scientific evidence' – forcing the company to affirmatively prove its statements instead of defending any statements suspected of being incorrect." Neither Unruh nor Titus explain why scientific evidence of efficacy is a bad thing.
Indeed, it seems that Daniel Chapter One has an aversion to "scientific evidence." In an answering brief, the FTC states:
Respondents did not conduct or direct others to conduct any scientific testing of the effects of the Challenged Products, and offered no evidence of any such testing having been performed by others. F.308. Instead of relying upon scientific testing to substantiate their advertising claims, Respondents claimed that they relied on personal observations, customer testimonials, and a variety of books, magazines, and aricles about how certain substances in the Challenged Products could be utilized. F. 316-18. Their proffered experts were not medical doctors and had no specialized training or experience regarding cancer or cancer treatment. F. 335-337. Even Respondents' purorted experts admitted, however, that because the Challenged Products have not been tested, their effectiveness in the prevention, treatment, or cure of cancer is not known.
Rather than tell the truth, Unruh misleadingly portrays the case as one of the "Goliath-sized" FTC unfairly targeting a "small Christian nutrition ministry" and obscures the actual issues involved. It's this kind of biased, misleading reporting that seems to indicate why Unruh is working for WND instead of the Associated Press.
NewsBusters Won't Admit Biden Has Catholic 'Faith' Topic: NewsBusters
A Feb. 18 NewsBusters post on "befuddled reactions from the mainstream media" over the ashes on Vice President Joe Biden's forehead on Ash Wednesday carried the curious headline, "Media Confused By Biden's Ashes, Omits His Catholic Heterodoxy."
Balan seems to not want to grant the fact that Biden is, in fact, a Catholic. Indeed, he's offended that "ABC News's Karen Travers omitted the past controversy over his support for legalized abortion, and portrayed him as a devout Catholic."
While Balan referenced Ted Turner's long-ago statement on the subject -- which Balan delcared "the most egregious statements made on the topic of Ash Wednesday" -- he was silent about Dennis Miller's equally egregious, if not more so, statement on Fox News that the ashes on Biden's forehead show where President Obama "puts his smokes out."
Ellis Washington Gets It Wrong -- Again Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington has not been one to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, and he keeps that up in his Feb. 20 WorldNetDaily column, in which he attempts to portray evolution as equally unproven as global warming:
I cannot help to see this manmade climate change scam being our modern-day equivalent to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution 150 years ago, which I consider scientific mythology or fairy tales for adults.
One hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin, an unremarkable British naturalist, was able to beguile the entire education, political, scientific and intellectual world with his sophistic and unscientific theories of the origin of man as chronicled in his two famous books: "The Origin of Species" (1859) and "The Descent of Man" (1871). As it was then so it is now; Darwin and his zealous legions of followers had not one shred of verifiable evidence for their theory. Truth and logic are not required to join the cult of Darwin or global warming; complete religious devotion is.
One man, Charles Darwin, 150 years ago through his diabolical theory of evolution has done what the Goths, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Vandals and Attila the Hun could not do – destroy Western civilization by marginalizing objective truth. Before Darwin, Western civilization was based on logic, symmetry and the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought.
Darwinism is a radical, evolutionary worldview that systematically denigrated Christianity, the Constitution and the academy and has tried to destroy objective truth. Now most politicians, judges, academics, theologians and intellectuals believe that truth is relative; morality is in the eye of the beholder. Every man does what is right in his own eyes.
And it wouldn't be Ellis Washington if he wasn't lying about global warming as well. He claims that the stolen emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit -- which he baselessly attributes to "some Chinese hackers" -- prove that "all of their data on climate change was counterfeit and contrived; but more importantly, that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a willful scientific fraud from its beginning."
Washington claims that former CRU chief Phil Jones "conceded the existence of the Medieval Warming Period, which occurred from approximately A.D. 800 to 1300" without offering evidence that he denied its existence. Washington alsofalsely claims that "Jones was forced to admit" that warming cycles "from 1975 to 1998" had "nothing to do with man causation." In fact, he said the opposite -- that "we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing," and that it would not be reasonable to conclude that "recent warming is not predominately manmade."
Brent Bozell's Heathering Fail Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell tried his hand at the Heathering his employees regularly engage in, writing a Feb. 16 column in which he berates Joe Scarborough for not being sufficiently conservative and for daring to criticize Republicans.
Even more offensive to Bozell: Scarborough responded to criticisms of him by the MRC and its NewsBusters blog:
I don’t know when or where or even if Joe Scarborough’s radio show airs in my area, nor do I care. The other night a friend caught this clip from his radio show and sent it to me. It’s about a blog which is published by the organization I head.
"NewsBusters, which just loves writing negative articles about me, I don’t know why, a lot of really false ones and I don’t know what’s actually gotten into Brent Bozell, but he actually goes out of his way to write false articles about me now…They just distort the news for their own purposes."
Now I know why MSNBC hired Joe Scarborough. He’s about as accurate and honest as everyone else there.
False articles? Here’s something Joe knows, because he and I have had this conversation privately already: I’ve never written a bloody article about him. Ever.
As for conservative bloggers at NewsBusters writing false articles about him, that is equally untrue. Have they sometimes been negative? Guilty as charged – and for good reason. Increasingly he’s making statements that are stupid, or reckless, or provocative, or insulting, or a combination of all the above.
Scarborough regularly blasts the Republican Party as having betrayed its commitment to fiscal responsibility, limited government and anti-Wilsonian foreign policy. I can and do applaud him for that. But why go on a non-stop rant against George W. Bush for the audacity to launch the military surge in Iraq (yup, the one that won the war) and conclude it by declaring, "Is it not a stretch to say that many Republicans would have considered impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton if this situation were identical?"
Scarborough responded with a column at Townhall rebutting Bozell's complaints:
Brent Bozell thinks I have fallen from the ranks of true conservatives and wrote a scathing blog on his website listing my offenses against Republicanism. Judging from the harshness of his tone, you would think that I threw my lot in with a pack of pot smoking Greenwich Village Marxists or, at the very least, lent grudging support to the public option.
But no. My crimes against conservatism were much worse. Brent Bozell has accused me of committing the unpardonable sins of saying unflattering things about George W. Bush, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
The truth is that while I campaigned for President Bush and supported him in both of his runs for president, I became disillusioned with his presidency earlier than most.
Brent was greatly offended when I suggested that Rush should not be telling America that he was rooting against the President of the United States. Call me old fashioned, but I believe you pray for the President and the United States of America without ceasing. As Jesus taught us, it is easy to pray for our friends. But it is more important to pray for those with whom we deeply disagree.
If my grandmother could pray for Jimmy Carter, I can pray for Barack Obama. Besides, I know he can only succeed if he turns away from his ruinous economic policies that will explode the deficit and destroy our economy.
As for Brent Bozell, I have been an admirer of his from afar since the early 90s when a friend started bringing Media Research Center reports to Sunday School at First Baptist Church in Pensacola. Brent exposed media bias when it was at his worst and I will always be grateful for that. Unfortunately, his website has been posting items that pull a statement out of my three hour newscasts and painting me as an evil liberal in the MSM.
These posts ignore the reality of the show's format, which is one conservative debating a cast of liberals more often than not. I usually walk off set with thousands of angry emails hurled my way from far left extremists. Mixed in with all those slanderous emails that call me everything from a fascist to a white supremacist, I usually find one email from Newsbusters asking why I hate conservatives.
It's all very predictable by now, but last summer there was one especially misleading post that suggested I was a failure in the media because I was a "liberal." The Newsbusters item said my new radio show was gaining no traction, that my book was languishing in the 300s, and that my TV show was attracting no viewers.
I called Brent to helpfully explain that my new radio show outrated Glenn Beck's every month head-to-head in America's top market (which is also both of our home markets.)
I also politely explained to Brent at the time of the conversation that my book was in the Top 10 on the New York Times list, in Barnes and Noble, and in Borders.
And I also let him know that Morning Joe was doubling the ratings Imus brought in over his ten years at MSNBC, despite the fact that our show was relatively new.Brent was unbowed by facts and let me know that I would be doing even better if I was still a conservative.
At that point, I asked Brent to name one issue where I had changed since the first day I entered Congress in 1994. He could not. I then asked how he could no longer consider me a conservative if, in fact, I had remained more consistent over the past 15 years in my views than the entire Republican Party.
Brent sputtered a while and then finally spit my crime against humanity out."You attacked Rush!!!"
Hmm. Very interesting.
The response from the MRC? None on the substance of what Scarborough said, but a Feb. 19 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham complained that the comments weren't activated on Scarborough's column, nefariously suggesting that it was done deliberately. He later updated to quote someone at Townhall denying any deliberate attempt to block commenters (comments are now permitted).
Graham went on to complain that Mediaite "has picked up the controversy, but pitched it as a battle over how conservative Scarborough is -- not over his reckless radio-show charges of 'false articles' from Bozell." But Scarborough did provide specific examples of how Bozell's organization did "false articles" by taking his words out of context.
And Mediaite is correct to frame it as a purity issue, since that's what it is. After all, Bozell and Co. don't complain about Rush Limbaugh, even when he regularly violates the standards of decency they claim to uphold.