Bozell Can't Quite Admit He's Heathering Scarborough Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell is not done Heathering Joe Scarborough, it seems.
On the heels of a column completely dedicated to bashing Scarborough for not lying about Mitt Romney's bleak presidential prospects and, thus, putting right-wing ideology ahead of reality, Bozell cranked out an open letter after Scarborough said on a radio show that Bozell was "very angry" with him for pointing out incompetently run Republican campaigns. Bozell, of course, is pretending he's not:
It is amazing. There's not a single thing you said about me that is true. What amazes is that you know you're not telling the truth and still you say it.
-- I was never "very angry" with you for saying critical things about Romney. I am critical of you for writing books at night lecturing Republicans on how they can win while spending your mornings on that network of yours doing what hosts on that network do: trashing Republicans at every opportunity.
-- I was "very angry" at you for pointing out that Romney was a flip-flopper? Joe, Joe: Next you'll state I endorsed Obamacare. But since you raised the subject of flip-flops, try this one on for size: You savage conservatives on a regular basis, then rush to chest-thump: "I'm a conservative first!" Maybe it's not a flip-flop. Maybe it's just intellectual dishonesty and nothing else.
-- "Just like he defended John McCain, he was very angry when I was critical of John McCain." The only person who finds that assertion more ridiculous than I do would be John McCain.
-- "[T]his all started when I started criticizing George Bush in 2004 for his big spending Republicanism." You've said the same thing about Rush Limbaugh. And Sean Hannity. And Mark Levin. You said it to me, remember? And remember how I told you you were being ridiculous? You say that about anyone critical of you, including now me. Joe, tell me: Is it that you're foolish or is this just intellectual dishonesty -- again?
-- Of me you say, "There are a lot of people in Washington DC who love establishment Republicans and make a lot of money churning up controversy, and basically say, "Be on our side no matter what." Joe, open the windows at MSNBC. The sound you'll hear in the distance is Capitol Hill erupting in laughter.
-- "He never criticizes me on ideology." Good Lord, how direct must I be to register on that score? More intellectual dishonesty. (Are we seeing a trend here, Joe?)
-- And finally, in this short exchange you find a way to suggest three times that I'm "very angry" with you. I'm not, Joe.
You're not worth it.
Needless to say, the fact that Bozell felt the need to crank out this open letter is all the evidence one needs to see that he is, in fact, very angry with Scarborough. What Bozell is attacking as "intellectual dishonesty" is his own refusal to acknowledge reality: Scarborough appears to be right about his criticism of the presidential campaigns of McCain and Romney given that both candidates lost.
Also note that Bozell never specifically denies that he wants Scarborough to lie about conservatives in order to preserve their chances of winning. It's so obvious that he does, even if he doesn't want it put in those words.
It is Heathering, pure and simple. Bozell should just acknowledge it.
WND Turns To Right-Wing AAPS Associate To Bash Obamacare Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Minor writes in a Nov. 24 WorldNetDaily article:
A New York neurologist is warning of a dangerous problem with government databases that are declaring people dead when they are very much alive.
Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, a board-certified neurologist in Derby, N.Y., told WND with the growing trend to use, collect and maintain large databases, the government is establishing a system where anything can be claimed medically about a person whether it is true or not.
“The problem is once wrong information gets into the electronic database, it’s very difficult to get it corrected or get it out of there,” Huntoon sid. “What happens is the flawed data is now spread more efficiently among different agencies, and that’s not good.”
Huntoon has also attacked what he calls "sham peer review" of physicians -- ironic, since meaningful peer review of the journal he heads would have kept things like the leprosy error from showing up.
The fact that Huntoon is so closely affiliated with such a fringe group should disqualify him from being any sort of expert. But then, WND already runs a weekly column by his AAPS colleague Lee Hieb, so such things don't matter.
Matt Philbin Has Issues Topic: Media Research Center
As he established when he tweeted sleazy things about Sandra Fluke, the Media Research Center's Matt Philbin has issues with women who take birth control -- in his mind, they're nothing but sluts.
On Nov. 12, Philbin tweeted: "Then the birth control fairy came and gave all the good composite girls #hosurance, and they whored happily ever after."That came amidst a series of sneering, misogynist tweets about "hosurance."
As the comment thread on theh tweet indicates, we attempted to pin down whether he thinks all women who use birth control are sluts or just all women who get their birth control through Obamacare, but we were not successful.
On Nov 20, Philbin's idea to "rebrand Obamacare" was the slogan "Insured girls are easy." Again, we tried to find out why he thinks women who take birth control are "easy," but Philbin refused to give a straight answer.
We'd question why the MRC continues to hire such a misogynist, but it appears that his continued employment there constitutes endorsement of his slut-shaming.
WND Unhappy '12 Years A Slave' Accurately Depicts People Using Bible to Justify Slavery Topic: WorldNetDaily
Drew Zahn's Nov. 17 WorldNetDaily review of "12 Years A Slave" is lavish with praise for the movie ... except for the part about how it tells how pro-slavery forces used the Bible to justify slavery. Why? Because if that gets around, people might stop believing the Bible:
Even more troubling, however, was the film’s frequent assault on the Bible.
I won’t say “assault on Christianity,” per se, for the faith of the slaves in the film was often a balm, a positive influence in times of need.
But on multiple occasions in “12 Years a Slave,” a white plantation owner is seen reading or quoting the Bible to his slaves while in the background or voiceover you hear his slaves being whipped, screaming or otherwise suffering.
Yes, the Bible was twisted by many to justify slavery. That’s a part of American history. It’s a shameful part to be sure.
But again, I ask: What impact does this depiction have on audiences today?
My concern is that it paints Southern Christianity – which prizes the words of Scripture and the value of the gospel – if not all of biblical Christianity, as inherently hypocritical. It turns the Bible-quoters into villains, when the Bible-quoters are actually holding out the greatest hope for America today.
Director Steve McQueen draws a brilliant picture, but I’m concerned he paints with way too broad a brush here. After all, belief in the Bible laid the foundation for America’s fundamental beliefs in equality and the value of every individual. It was the biblical faith of William Wilberforce that led him to campaign tirelessly against slavery and see it outlawed in the British Empire.
It really all boils down to this: American slavery was a shameful, abhorrent practice. It violated in the most basic and obvious ways the Christian principles upon which this nation was founded and the virtues of freedom and equality those principles engendered.
But how do we in 2013 handle this shame?
“12 Years a Slave” rips the scabs off the wound – and all the more effectively for how well it’s made – but what are we going to do with the fresh bleeding? I’m doubtful most Americans will see from “12 Years a Slave” that our healing and redemption comes in Christ. I’m concerned the way the Bible is depicted in it, that modern Americans will run further from the healing we need, rather than nearer.
Zahn might also be concerned that conservative Christians using the Bible to justify discrimination against gays -- a driving force at WND -- will be perceived in the same light as those who used the Bible to justify slavery. He obviously can't have that.
This is what happens when people like Zahn put adherence to an ideology before anything else.
CNS Obsesses Over Obama Photo Shoot From 6 Years Ago Topic: CNSNews.com
Yes, CNSNews.com really did devote a Nov. 21 article by Barbara Boland to this subject:
On June 20, 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination at the time, hosted a “portrait session” in his U.S. Senate office where he posed for and with Terry Richardson, a man already well-known, as the flyleaf of a coffee-table collection of his work put it, as the photographer who “took 1970s porn esthetic and made it fashion chic.”
Not just your average article, mind you -- Boland cranks out nearly 2,000 words to complain about Richardson's photographic career, complete with pictures of photos from a Richardson artbook complete with pink sticky notes covering the naughty bits.
But why bother to do this article in the first place? This is the kind of desperate, petty guilt-by-association smear that belongs in the waning days of a campaign (like CNS' failed freakout over sexual content in novels written by Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb in 2006, apparently unable to separate fiction from reality), not hurled at a president who won re-election and will never run for office again.
Boland made clear in her article that she really wants some answers to her petty attack, dammit:
CNSNews.com also sent the following questions to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:
1) Was then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign or Senate staff familiar with Terry Richardson reputation for “porn chic” photography before they scheduled Obama’s 2007 “portrait session” with Richardson? If not, why not?
2) Does President Obama regret that the campaign let that “portrait session” take place?
3) Does President Obama believe that Terry Richardson’s photography degrades women?
4) Given the credibility he helped give to Richardson by posing for and with him, do you believe President Obama should express regret for having done so given the sexually graphic nature of Richardson’s photography and the way he presents women?
Despite several phone calls and e-mails over the course of four days, the White House did not respond.
Boland appears not tyo have considered the possibility that the White House saw her attempt to smear Obama for what it was and treated her inquiry with the lack of respect it deserved.
There are plenty of grounds for impeachment. A best-selling book by a Texas congressman spells some of them out. Curiously, he is silent on the central ground of impeachment: that Mr Obama continues to display a bad forgery of a Hawaiian birth certificate on the White House website.
I call Hawaiigate the central ground of impeachment for two reasons. First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the “birth certificate” was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the “president” has no clothes.
Contrast this shoddy, lying administration with that of the first man to grace the office that Mr. Obama now occupies. George Washington “could not tell a lie.” Barry Soetero, or whatever his real name is, cannot tell the truth. That observation is a measure of how far America under the “Democrats” has fallen from the high ideals and the noble example of the founding president of the United States.
On any objective test, Mr. Obama should not merely be impeached: he should be imprisoned. But no one will do anything to bring him to book. Corruption by inaction is the most corrosive corruption of all.
-- Christopher Monckton, Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily column
The political stench of Obamacare is just getting started. As the pain of Obamacare broadens and deepens, Democrats will soon be referring to right now as “the good old days”! One reason exposed liars don’t do well in politics is, we don’t like liars. This is worse. These Obama lies are heavy with pain for the voter. Did any Watergate lie cause real public pain? Did Iran-Contra cause any voter to lose his health insurance? The difference between the lies of Obama and the lies of any other president is the difference between a harmless snake and a poisonous snake, or summer lightning and streak lightning. Or, as Mark Twain most famously said, it’s the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
Speaking of the imposter in the Oval Office, it wasn’t that long ago that liberals used to insist that George W. Bush was avenging his father by going after Saddam Hussein. And yet they never even mention the far likelier scenario that Barack Hussein Obama is avenging himself on his drunken, communist, father’s sworn enemies – namely, the white race, Western civilization, Christians, Jews, all non-Muslims and capitalists.
What America needs is a shadow government. A single place where the “outside the beltway” party sets its own policy and with that policy drives the news agenda. (Remember, there are only two political parties.)
When John Kerry sets down Obama’s golf clubs while the Hawaiian performs the Kenyan sandbox dance and tosses the ball back out onto the fairway, and then issues a foreign-policy pronouncement, shadow.gov swings into action.
They immediately announce a pro-American policy, issue a statement as to why the Kenyan’s policy is bad for America, and urge him not to cheat at his golf game.
Well, it’s finally happened. We have reached the point where it has become so evident that President Barack Hussein Obama is just this side of evil incarnate and that his administration and radical leftists in Congress are constitutional criminals that those who continue to support them and their policies are either ideologically kindred (and thus, enemies of the republic), or so pitifully dim that they may not merit rescue from a burning building. No … I think I’ll save that dog over there; at least he may wind up being of benefit to humankind someday …
Thus, I believe that these supporters – whether politicos, press, or rank-and-file voters – have forfeited the right to be taken in any way seriously.
If what you’re looking for is impeachment or resignation or a president who dares not leave his bunker, hatching time is a ways off and potatoes are still underground and not on the menu yet. My aspirations are a little more grab-able. I’ll gladly settle for an end to President Obama’s ability to inflict further damage on America.
Over here, waiter! This is the table that’s ready for the champagne.
As those folks see it, if something good happens, it’s because of God. But when something terrible – such as the Holocaust or childhood leukemia – occurs, they explain that God moves in mysterious ways, and we mere mortals can’t hope to divine His motives.
Well, OK, He’s God, and if He created the heavens, the stars, the earth and all of its inhabitants, including dogs, elephants and giraffes, it might be expedient to cut Him some slack. But when we’re talking about an arrogant narcissist whose major achievement was being a shill for ACORN, which is a lot like being a union organizer but without the requisite muscle, why would anyone fawn over this lying jackass?
Here we have two men (Obama and Holder) of the same ideological bent and operational modality facing the greatest challenges of their tenure of their offices. Both employ the imperious autocracy that occasionally meanders into the area of tyranny in Obama’s case. Unfortunately for them, these traits no longer appear to be serving them as well as in the past. With regard to Obamacare, the president’s lie was so monstrous and its effects so lingering that he may never live it down.
It is an even bet that behind the scenes, given Obama’s newfound vulnerability, his past transgressions – some of which are indeed criminal – are now being considered in a very different light by his heretofore timid political opponents.
While the current furor over Eric Holder’s alleged actions had its genesis some time ago, it is arguable that the recent decision of congressional Republicans to move forward with their case against him is largely political opportunism. If Republican lawmakers are looking toward Obama’s impeachment or other methods by which they might effectively render his position untenable, then Holder would certainly be a good man to have out of the way prior to initiating such effort.
MRC's Drennen: Obama Should've Said 'Under God' Even Though Gettysburg Address Draft He Read Didn't Say That Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is never going to admit that its attacks on President Obama over the Gettysburg Address.
In the wake of Tim Graham obsessing over Obama not saying the words "under God" in reciting the Gettysburg Address for a Ken Burns video project -- and failing to tell his readers that Burns specifically asked Obama to read an early draft of the address thatdid not contain those words -- Kyle Drennen does the same thing in a Nov. 21 MRC item:
On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams noted President Obama and the four former living presidents reciting the Gettysburg Address to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's historic speech, but ignored the fact that Obama omitted the phrase "under God" from his reading and refused to attend the event marking the anniversary. [Listen to the audio]
Williams made a point of declaring that project orchestrated by documentary filmmaker Ken Burns was "urging Americans to memorize and celebrate the Gettysburg Address," and emphasized: "Considering it's one of the most important speeches in American history, think about this, it was only about two minutes long, 272 words in all." Making Obama's gaffe of skipping two of those words all the more noticeable and embarrassing.
Unlike Graham, Drennen did note that Obama read an early draft of the address -- which contradicts his assertion that Obama committed a "gaffe." But Drennen decided that was no excuse:
The White House has claimed that President Obama simply read a copy of the speech provided by Burns – a written draft preserved by White House staffer John Nicolay that did not include "under God," something Lincoln added extemporaneously.
The obvious question that arises from that explanation is why would you have people recite different versions of a speech you're encouraging people to memorize word for word? In addition, it's the anniversary of the speech Lincoln actually uttered on November 19, 1863, not the anniversary of when a draft of the speech was written.
Instead of berating Obama for reading something exactly as written, Drennen should let go of his Obama derangement and start behaving like the "researcher" he's supposed to be and take the question up with Burns himself.
WND's Maloof Trots Out Crazy Birther Ex-General for Obama-Bashing Encore Topic: WorldNetDaily
Here's another sign Michael Maloof's conspiracy theory that President Obama is systematically firing military commanders is falling apart -- he brings back one of his favorite crazy ex-generals for more baseless conspiracy-mongering.
In a Nov. 19 WND article, Maloof touts how retired Gen. Paul Vallely "is calling for the “forced resignations” of President Obama, other administration officials and the leadership of Congress for the direction they’re taking the nation, his list of grievances including the systematic political purge of hundreds of senior military officers in the U.S. military."
As we pointed out the last time Maloof cited him, Vallely is a crazy birther whose opinion on Obama is severely clouded by his obvious hatred for the president.
If all Maloof has to back up his conspiracy theory is crazy ex-generals and anonymous, unverifiable sources, there clearly is nothing to see here -- not that Maloof won't stop trying to convince you otherwise.
CNS' Starr Gay-Baits on Medal of Freedom Recipients Topic: CNSNews.com
Penny Starr knows how to cater to the homophobes that read CNSNews.com. Thus, we have a Nov. 21 article from her that carries the headline "Obama Honors Gay Socialist and Lesbian Astronaut" and begins like this:
President Barack Obama on Wednesday awarded the highest honor that can be bestowed on a civilian – the Presidential Medal of Freedom – to 16 people, including a homosexual who led the socialist party in the United States and astronaut Sally Ride, whose partner “outed” her as a lesbian in Ride’s obituary last year.
As far as Starr is concerned, the only possible reason Obama could have honored Bayard Rustin and Ride is because they were gay -- not because of what they achieved (Rustin's civil rights activism, Ride as the first female astronaut).
But that anti-gay obsession serves her well in her job -- her employer does have an anti-gay agenda, after all.
WND's Monckton Recycles Discredited Chain Email In His Column Topic: WorldNetDaily
Christopher Monckton writes in his Nov. 19 WorldNetDaily column:
Half a century earlier, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, professor of history at the University of Edinburgh, wrote of the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years previously:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.”
Here are some revealing figures from professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University Law School, St. Paul, Minn., kindly sent to me by a reader. I have taken them on trust, but if they are true, they are fascinating.
Obama won 19 states, Romney 29. Obama won 600,000 square miles of land, Romney 2.5 million. Obama won counties with a combined population of 127 million, Romney 143 million. The murder rate per 1,000 residents in counties won by Obama was 13, Romney 2.
“In aggregate,” says the prof, “the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
Does that sound familiar? It should. Monckton copied a long-discredited chain email into his column.
As we documented way back in 2004, there is no Alexander Tyler who was a professor of history at the University of Edinburgh; there is an Alexander Fraser Tytler who was indeed an 18-century Scottish history professor, but there's no record he ever said such a thing.
And while there was (and perhaps still is) a Professor Joseph Olson and there is a Hamline University, Olson confirmed to Snopes that "he had no authorship or involvement in this matter." Also, the numbers falsely attributed to him were wrong when they attached to the names of Al Gore and George W. Bush, and they are most certainly even more so now since the exact same numbers are used with the names simply changed to Obama and Romney.
If Monckton will just blindly copy-and-paste random emails into his column without checking them out first, it doesn't exactly bode well for his insistence that manmade global warming doesn't exist.
UPDATE: Monckton also describes Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" as having been published in 1830; in fact, it was published in two volumes in 1835 and 1840. You'd think an America-phile like Monckton would at least get that correct.
NEW ARTICLE: The MRC's Unambiguously Catholic Duo Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham lead the Media Research Center in promoting Catholicism and bullying its critics -- and hiding Bozell's connections to Catholic activist groups. Read more >>
This Is WND-Published Book's 'Bombshell'? Topic: WorldNetDaily
It's a "bombshell" claim from Dan Bongino, former Secret Service agent and current WorldNetDaily author, as articulated in a Nov. 18 WND article:
Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and author of the brand-new book “Life Inside the Bubble: Why a Top-Ranked Secret Service Agent Walked Away From It All,” is rebutting claims President Obama has received more security threats than any other U.S. president, due to his race.
“It’s not true, it’s been refuted over and over again, yet people continue to propagate this media meme to make America feel like it’s a racist country,” Bongino told WND.
He noted his assessment is “based on my direct, first-hand experience doing lead advances for the president and what the head of the Secret Service said himself in a sworn testimony.”
In Bongino’s opinion, the false assertion that threats against a sitting president are at an all-time high because of his race undermines the security of the president and causes time and resources to be wasted on frivolous claims.
“This isn’t a harmless exercise, it’s not just a political statement,” Bongino said. “The left wants us to believe that we’re a racist country to create division for political gain.”
As that distorted image of America permeates the culture, he said, the Secret Service “starts getting reports like ‘my white neighbor said he doesn’t like Obamacare,’ and they start calling this in as a threat.”
Order your copy of “Life Inside the Bubble.”
“This has a real tangible effect on allocated assets – it’s a zero-sum game, he explained.
That's it? That's the big "bombshell" claim in Bongino's book?
It's such a "bombshell," in fact, that PolitiFact came to the same conclusion months ago.
If the best "bombshell" that WND can come up with is something that was reported months ago, the rest of Bongino's book must be really boring (in that it contains nothing but the standard right-wing Obama-bashing).
CNS Complains Obama's Tribute to Lincoln Is Longer Than Gettysburg Address Topic: CNSNews.com
Susan Jones really did write this in a Nov. 20 CNSNews.com blog post:
One hundred fifty years after President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address, President Obama penned a handwritten tribute to President Lincoln's historic remarks, the White House blogged on Wednesday.
Notably, Obama's 276-word essay is seven words longer than Lincoln's memorable speech, based on the 269-word version transmitted by the Associated Press 150 years ago.
That's right -- Jones is complaining that Obama's tribute to Lincoln is longer than the Gettysburg Address.
Has Jones nothing better to do with her life -- and hates Obama so much -- that she has time to write such a petty, mincing criticism of the president? Has Jones no pride in journalism, or is she so slavishly devoted to right-wing ideology that she eagerly pawns off partisan attacks as "news"?
Even for an Obama-deranged right-wing outlet like CNS, this is pretty pathetic.
Jack Cashill's Soft Spot for Killers Continues With Zimmerman Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill is making it clearer than ever that George Zimmerman has a free pass to do anything and Cashill will not find any fault with him.
Following up on his earlier book-sales-driven absolution of Zimmerman's latest crime, Cashill doubles down in a Nov. 20 WorldNetDaily column, blaming not only the media but also Zimmerman's now-estranged wife and soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend for his current condition:
Between April 2012 and July 2013, Zimmerman’s life fell apart. He showed up at the trial dead-eyed, grossly overweight, and financially and emotionally bankrupt.
The local NAACP, with which he had worked on a civil rights case a year earlier, had betrayed him. The state of Florida had sacrificed him to the mob.
His president denied him. The media had rendered the mid-Florida ether so poisonous he could scarcely leave the house. His wife no longer loved him and was eager to tell the world about it.
Zimmerman’s acquittal settled nothing. The death threats amplified. The attorney general continued to hound him despite full clearance by the FBI more than a year prior. And the media cried “Injustice!”
“I still see sadness in his eyes,” said his brother Robert soon after the acquittal. “He was definitely not the same person I had seen a few days before the incident.”
In the last two years, Zimmerman has experienced more betrayal on more levels than most of us will in a lifetime.
Now, it appears that his latest “victim,” girlfriend Samantha Scheibe, was soliciting national media interviews weeks before their well-publicized dust-up.
Regardless of the circumstances, each misstep Zimmerman has made post-trial has left the media giddy. They seem to think it vindicates their utterly subversive rush to judgment.
The fact is that the Zimmerman they now happily trash is the Zimmerman they helped create. Whatever happens going forward, the blood is on their hands.
Apparently, Zimmerman has no responsibility for his own behavior.
But then, Cashill has always had a soft spot for murderers. he penned a seven-part series at WND asserting that anti-abortion activist James Kopp was being framed for the 1998 death of New York abortion doctor Barnett Slepian -- a conspiracy inconvenienced by the fact that Kopp eventually pleaded guilty to the murder. He also falsely suggested that Eric Rudolph was similarly being framed for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing and another bombing at an abortion clinic.
More recently, Cashill championed the cause of a Navy sailor convicted of killing a man who paid him to perform oral sex on him, insisting the sailor killed in self-defense while ignoring the fact that the sailor lied to police and admitted he choked his victim for five minutes.
In Zimmerman, Cashill has found another killer whose only supposed crime is killing someone who deserved it. As before, it's blowing back on him.
This time, however, the publisher of his pro-Zimmerman, anti-Trayvon Martin book, WND, is feeling the pain as nobody wants to buy a book about someone with serious anger management problems (at the very least) being portrayed as a civil rights martyr. Indeed, at this writing Cashill's book is at a miserable No. 35,910 on Amazon's sales list -- pretty low for a book on a hot-button subject that came out less than a month ago.
Cashill is clearly misguided on many things, but he's wrong about this: If Cashill continues to make excuses for Zimmerman's behavior and makes no effort to get him the help he obviously needs, Cashill will be the one with blood on his hands.
Bozell Heathers Joe Scarborough For Not Lying About Romney's Prospects Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell's Nov. 20 column is a massive fit of Heathering directed at MSNBC's Joe Scarborough for being insufficiently right-wing.
More to the point, Bozell is upset that Scarborough told the truth about Mitt Romney's faltering prospects during the 2012 presidential campaign:
Let's take just a few samples of evidence from 2012, when Republicans nominated Mitt Romney.
—On March 31, Scarborough mocked Romney for mutilating himself (rhetorically) — "He is a cutter, a political cutter" — and then ridiculed a poll result showing the GOP losing by 25 to Obama among women. "I guess that idea of chaining women to a radiator in the kitchen, that the Republicans wanted to put on platform, not going over."
—On April 4, Joe "Damn Tired of Losing" Scarborough announced on his show: "I've yet to meet a single person in the Republican establishment that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election this year. They won't say it on TV because they've got to go on TV, and they don't want people writing them nasty emails. I obviously don't care."
—On Sept. 8, Scarborough appeared on "Today" to trash Romney's chances. "This is one of the worst weeks for any presidential candidate in a general election that any of us can remember ... Unemployment is still 8 percent-plus, the economy is still in tatters, and Mitt Romney is blowing this race." At the end of the segment, he added, "I'm going to go put a bag over my head now, so I will talk to you soon."
—On Sept. 14, Scarborough lashed into Romney for a "horrific, irresponsible press conference" after the attacks in Benghazi. (Romney spoke before word came of four Americans dying.) "If Mitt Romney had kept his mouth shut, if he had not acted like a rank amateur, if he had not embarrassed himself — and by the way internally the campaign understands they screwed up, he's moved on, they know that. So no conservative can say, `Oh, the mainstream media, blah, blah.' ... Romney got in the way of the media looking at the president."
—On Sept. 28, Obama-loving CBS late-night host David Letterman publicized "Morning Joe" with the title "Joe Scarborough: Sweet Jesus." CBS then played an MSNBC clip that began with an incredibly standard campaign event where Romney encouraged the crowd to chant "Romney-Ryan." It ended when the camera switched back to the set showing Scarborough with his hands covering his face in shame as he said, "Sweet Jesus!" The Letterman audience roared.
—On Oct. 29, Scarborough appeared on "Today" to insist Hurricane Sandy would help elect Obama. "Mitt Romney had momentum ... This was Mitt Romney's best weekend, and it stops. The momentum stops."
If Scarborough were really "damn tired" of losing, he might wonder why he's crushed daily in the ratings by "Fox & Friends." It's not just ideologically indulgent Republicans he's tried to defeat; it's all Republicans. Please, Joe, no more lectures about your conservative credentials.
Bozell offers no evidence that anything Scarborough said was incorrect -- he's mad that it was said at all. In Bozell's media bubble, conservatives and Republicans must be praised even if they're wrong, must be touted as winners even if they're losing. He's essentially saying that Scarborough should have lied about Romney in order to prove his conservative bona fides.
Bozell is also hacked off that Scarborough's new book will be "reviewed by The New York Times, while Mark Levin's truly important, best-selling books are not." He doesn't mention that his Media Research Center is paying Levin to promote it on Levin's radio show.
Bozell demands ideological loyalty over the truth when it comes to conservatives -- the opposite of what he expects from the "liberal media." Double standard much?