Newsmax Gives Rick Scott the McCollum Treatment Topic: Newsmax
Having fully cast off Bill McCollum by endoring the man he lost to in the Florida Republican gubernatorial primary, Newsmax follows up on its endorsement of Rick Scott by doing for him what it did for McCollum -- slanting its coverage of the race to favor Scott.
Here are some post-endorsement Newsmax headlines, taken from its wire for the race between Scott and Democrat Alex Sink:
Newsmax also did an Oct. 25 interview with Scott. As his been the case since Newsmax started working for Scott instead of against him, there was no mention of Scott's sordid history as head of a hospital company convicted of massively defrauding Medicare (something Newsmax was more than eager to discuss when it was on McCollum's side). Instead, interviewer Ashley Martella lobbed softball questions and uncritically described Scott as a "former health care industry executive." The accompanying article non-iroinically described Scott as a "successful businessman" -- something it would never have called Scott two months ago.
It seems it really doesn't matter who it's shilling for -- Newsmax only knows how to slant its news to whatever its interests are at any given moment. That's the sign of a political organization, not a news organization.
Which makes us wonder: Did Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy donate to Scott's campaign like he did to McCollum's? And if so, will he stay silent about it, just like he failed to tell Newsmax readers about his behind-the-scenes fundraising for McCollum?
CNS Finds New Obama Words To Obsess Over Topic: CNSNews.com
Now that its ginned-up "creator" controversy has been resolved, CNSNews.com had to quickly scramble to find another word or two that President Obama said (or didn't say) to obsess over. Thus, we have an Oct. 26 article by Penny Starr:
President Barack Obama repeatedly has called the United States a “big, messy Democracy" in his many campaign stops around the country in recent weeks.
That's pretty much the entire story. No explanation on why CNS is focusing on those words -- nothing. Just three words. They might as well be random.
The boys at NewsBusters are doing their best to downplay the case of Lauren Valle, the liberal activist who was stomped in the head by a supporter of Rand Paul outside a venue where a Kentucky Senate debate involving Paul took place.
Matthew Balan was annoyed that "CNN devoted seven news briefs on Tuesday to an assault on a MoveOn.org employee by Rand Paul supporters caught on camera outside the Kentucky Senate debate on Monday evening, but failed to mention a second assault on Rand Paul supporter by a booster of Paul's opponent, Jack Conway. Most of the briefs also omitted how the MoveOn employee was trying to get an embarrassing picture of Paul."
Kyle Drennen complained that CBS interviewed Valle but "in September 2009 the network failed to give any coverage to a man having his finger bitten off by a MoveOn.org supporter at a California ObamaCare rally." Drennen continued: "In addition, on Wednesday, Smith did not report the fact that a Rand Paul supporter was assaulted by a Jack Conway supporter at the very same debate rally on Monday."
Drennen also wrote in an update: "New video obtained by RedState.com shows Valle run up to Rand Paul's car and shove a sign in his face. That runs contrary to Valle's assertion to Smith that she was 'simply there to hold a sign.'"
Actually, that's not quote what it shows. TPM writes:
What do we learn from the new video? Not a lot. It depicts the chaotic clash of supporters outside the Senate debate in Lexington that preceded the stomping, just as all witness accounts and Valle's own recounting have said. Conservatives touting the video say it shows Valle "attempting to assault" Paul but it also appears she was getting pushed from behind.
Regardless of what the clip adds to the story, the fact remains that Profitt stomped on her head, leaving him open to criminal investigation and the Paul campaign open to criticism and public shaming.
Mark Finkelstein, meanwhile, is the only NewsBusters writer moved to actually condemn the stomping. But even he found a way to deflect attention from it:
The guy who put his foot on an anti-Paul protester and pushed should be made to answer to the law. Period. That doesn't mean Chris Matthews had to break out the tired Nazi metaphor. But he did.
On this evening's Hardball, after rolling tape of the incident that occurred outside the Kentucky senatorial debate last night, Matthews dredged up the creakiest cliché in politics.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Wo-w-w-w. I don' t know what to make of that, but it reminds me of the 30s in another country.
If Matthews is going to go the Nazi-metaphor route, can't he at least have the courage of doing so straight up, instead of resorting to lamely-laminated references?
Funny, we don't recall anyone at NewsBusters complaing when their fellow right-wingers drag out the Nazi metaphor against President Obama.
Reisman starts off by taking offense at President Obama's advice to gay teens, screeching that he is "urging vulnerable youths into a premature sexual life riddled with crippling disease and death," adding, "Why tell children to feel 'pride' and 'strength' in adopting an early death sentence when you are too immature to know much of anything? How cruel, how outrageously heartless!"
From there, Reisman presents as a example of "homosexual trauma" a 1988 ad (which she misidentifies as 1998) from a AIDS clinic stating that one in five "prospective partners could be infected with the virus that causes AIDS," claiming that the clinic "inadvertently confirmed homosexist sodomy as a death wish," asserting that "The data find roughly 1 in 5 homosexist males are an HIV, or, if you prefer, AIDS, vector."
Reisman seems not to understand that 22 years ago is not now. Also, "homosexist"? What does that even mean?
Still, she continues:
Depending on the data one consults, the average homosexual male has between 50 and 150 sex partners, and many die before age 20. Mr. Obama told these confused boys and girls to "reach out to people you trust," who would tell the child he or she is "gay." Obama's contention that teen homosexism as "a source of pride and a source of strength" is contraindicated by medial facts – a very short-lived period of "pride" or "strength."
AIDS has been transferred via oral sodomy while condoms during anal sodomy is an insider joke, albeit a lethal one (a penetration model increasingly fashionably among copy-cat "straights").
Statistically, youngsters who think themselves "gay" can expect to contract scores of STDs and to die young of AIDS. This is not "pride" but mass suicide based on how the human body responds to ongoing sodomy.
Reisman concludes by citing more ancient data, this time from a 1992 magazine article about the number of adolescents infected with AIDS who she presumeswere infected by adult "homosexist males," then asks, "Why haven't 10,000 or more homosexist males been arrested and convicted of mass boy murder?"
The fact that Reisman -- like Molotov Mitchell -- must go back 20 years to dig up statistics that don't reflect realities demonstrates the speciousness of her argument. Not to mention how, like with her anti-Kinsey jihad, personal animosity trumps anything remotely resembing sound research.
AIM's Kincaid Tries Lame Guilt-By-Association to Smear Stewart Rally Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid goes for some laughably crude guilt-by-association in his Oct. 26 Accuracy in Media column, highlighting a statement by "Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers" that this weekend's Washington rallies by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are "worth attending."
That hit-and-run smear is pretty much it. Kincaid devotes the rest of his column to attacking Ayers.
Then again, Kincaid wants to see gays die, so this little fit of amoral ranting is not exactly out of character.
A $41,000 "all-electric" car heavily hyped by the Obama administration is now being dubbed a "fraud" because it requires gasoline for the driver to get anywhere, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
Last summer, General Motors, commonly called "Government Motors" since the Obama administration takeover, unveiled the first of its "Obamamobiles," the Chevrolet Volt, a compact electric car.
"At the end of July, Obama allowed himself at a GM plant in Michigan to be photographed looking somewhat nervous and uncomfortable behind the wheel of a production-line model of the Chevy Volt," Corsi wrote. "Now it turns out the GM promotion about the Volt being the first truly all-electric car was just a lot of hype."
Corsi, unsurprisingly, gets things wrong. First, the Volt is not an "Obamamobile"; development started in 2006 and it made its first public appearance at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show -- both well before GM needed government intervention.
Second, the Volt was never promoted as an "all-electric car." It always had an internal combustion engine, as noted in the 2007 unveiling. What the Volt has that other hybrid cars don't is electric drive -- that is, an electric motor drives the car, and the internal combustion engine generates electricity but is not directly connected to the driving wheels.
Corsi also writes: "Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has scoffed that the $7,500 tax credit constitutes nothing less than an admission by the Obama administration that nobody wants to buy the Volt." In fact, GM reports that initial demand for the Volt is so strong that it's planning to boost production.
Corsi adds, "Even worse, TopSpeed.com reported that the Chevy Volt's 1.4-liter 80 horsepower engine will only run on premium gasoline." Corsi doesn't explain why that's somehow "worse," given that numerous cars on the market already require premium fuel. Further, the Volt uses premium for a reason, because of the way the motor is designed to be as small and as high-efficiency as possible.
With such easily discredited claims, no wonder Corsi couldn't get anyone to pay for his now-free (but still not functional to free subscribers) newsletter.
CNS' Obama Word Obsession Undermined (With Bonus Hate From CNS Readers) Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com's pedantic obsession with whether or not President Obama says a certain word just got undermined. From an Oct. 25 CNS article by Fred Lucas:
On the campaign trail for Democrats in recent days, President Barack Obama said the word “Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence, although he omitted the word in several earlier speeches this year. The addition of "Creator" came after press reports noted the omission in Obama's earlier speeches.
But CNS' obsession was dsesigned to generate hatred among its readers toward the president, and commenters on the article have obliged:
President Obama is like a destructive child who takes apart a priceless watch that was carefully passed down to him. Without regard for the value of what he holds, he recklessly scatters the pieces on the floor and then can’t put them back together again. Failing to learn from his mistakes, this destructive child moves on to another room where he finds another watch to take apart. Once again, he cannot put the pieces back together. That doesn’t stop him from tearing apart yet another costly timepiece until all that’s left are the pieces of discarded, functionless watches lying at his feet. What’s worse is that nobody steps in to stop him before he destroys again.
Wait until until this refugee from the circus slips up, and instead of Creator, which he obviously has a problem with, he uses the word he is more comfortable with....Allah
Obama leaves out reference to "The Creator" because in his mind that equates to GEORGE SOROS His Creator and puppet master.
Something tells me that the "Creator" doesn't really appreciate being used as a political prop. Sorry bubby, you're not supposed to use God. You're supposed to let Him use you. But then, a Christian would know that. An athiest, obviously, would not.
I think it's a little late for Mr. O to try to learn to speak the language of people he's already alienated.
This clown's commie government will be destroyed on election day.
lousy hate America Manchurain candidate stealth muslim. we need to send him back to the ghetto ASAP
Webster's needs to come up with new adjectives to adequately describe this fraud in the WH. Contempt. That's what America now has for him. We are returning to him the sentiment he has for us.
What a pathetic, manipulative attempt at "playing" the voters! This Marxist, like ALL Communists, USE religion to nefarious ends. The Socialists Obama, Pelosi and Reid are hell-bent on having the Democrat Party seen 20 years from now in the same light as the Whig and Bull Moose parties: EXTINCT!! All patriotic Americans (especially young ones) NEED to go vote and throw out the LIBERTY-ROBBING, HIGH-TAXING, MORALLY BANKRUPT Democrats in 2010 and 2012!! Your freedom DEPENDS on it......
Too late ol' shuck-n-jive, we already saw your original intent more than once.
This isn't news. If one pays attention and asks questions you would have known what kind of man he was long ago. Being a member of a questionable "church" led by Jeremiah Wright should have raised eyebrows. The speech he gave at Georgetown University back in April of '09 when he had the name of Lord Jesus Christ covered up with a black plywood triangle should be all the proof you need. Y'all should know better than to judge this man by his words. He lies. Judge him by his actions...they are all-telling.
Hooray! There is a God today! Or is he talking about our "creator", evolution....?
Nice readers you got there, CNS.
UPDATE: Lucas has a new article up featuring White House press secretary Robert Gibbs being asked a question about it by WorldNetDaily's Les Kinsolving.
You may recall that Kinsolving's boss, Joseph Farah, declared the omission of "Creator" to be "an attempt at deicide by Obama."
Kessler Missed the Memo on Williams Topic: Newsmax
I, the same column in which he went into full-fledged (and baseless) conspiracy mode over NPR's firing of Juan Williams, WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah insisted that Williams is "a bona fide liberal," adding that "I have always respected him as a thoughtful liberal commentator."
But somebody didn't get the right-wing memo that Farah did. Newsmax's Ronald Kessler wrote in his Oct. 25 column:
Fired NPR analyst Juan Williams is usually labeled a liberal. But I know a different Juan Williams.
I’ve been privileged to be a friend of Williams since the late 1970s, when we were both Washington Post reporters.
We would have lunch together and continued to socialize with our wives and kids after we both left the paper.
As a friend, it makes no difference to me whether Williams is a liberal, a conservative, or none of the above. But the fact is, Williams is no liberal.
To be sure, Williams usually takes the liberal side on Fox News’ round table discussions, often contributing points of view that add credibility to his argument. But on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show, he often sides with conservatives.
I once asked him why he comes across as a liberal in discussions on Fox News when I know him as leaning more to the conservative side. He said, in effect, that someone has to do it, meaning he is simply being a good commentator.
Oops! So much for the conventional right-wing narrative.
WND Columnist Steals From Limbaugh Topic: WorldNetDaily
Judson Phillips has been listening to a little too much Rush Limbaugh. Phillips writes in his Oct. 25 WorldNetDaily column:
A few days ago on CNN, White House political adviser David Axelrod said people should stay up all night for the election results, certainly hinting there would be some surprise outcome.
Elections always generate surprises. David Axelrod, with his gloating little prediction, scares the living daylights out of me.
I have been writing for several weeks, on Tea Party Nation and other sites, that this election is not in the bag for the conservatives, as many people want us to believe. We are dealing with liberals, and liberals never voluntarily surrender power. They have made vote fraud almost an art form. I have been telling people we need to be very worried about this election being stolen by the liberals.
Like the mythological hydra that grew two heads for every one cut off, the controversial ACORN group has been reborn under a swarm of new names and poses an "epidemic" voter-fraud threat that could alter the outcome of midterm elections, GOP leaders warn.
But Patten quotes only one "GOP leader": David Norcross, chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. Patten gives him plent of room to make unchallenged claims about voter fraud, at one point asserting: "It's an epidemic. ... It's laughable that the left calls voter fraud nonexistent. It's very much existent."
Needless to say, Patten has no interest in telling his readers the full story. As TPM points out, Norcross' group has been training lawyers in Illinois, where GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk got into hot water over his announcement that the campaign planned to deploy voter integrity squads in predominately minority neighborhoods throughout the state.
TPM also quotes voter fraud expert Tova Andrea Wang stating that the type of language used by Norcross is a perfect example of groups exaggerating the threat of voter fraud for political gain: "It's exactly the kind of inflammatory language that is less than useful at this time in the election cycle. It's the kind of language that is meant to gin up all sorts of unfounded conspiracy theories to steal the election which simply don't go on."
UPDATE: This is an regular ritual; Newsmax fearmongered about election fraud in 2004 and 2008.
Concomitant with the electoral revolutionaries massing in the distance, there's little doubt that the president also perceives the recent demise of "multikulti" in Europe and Americans' discovery of the race card's emetic properties as a harbinger of our beginning to reject progressives' insistence that we collectively kiss the behinds of every malicious, parasitic, ethnocentric faction that slithers across (or flies over) our borders. On all fronts whereupon the left realized staggering gains over the last several decades, they have suddenly begun to lose ground – and fast.
Now, I wouldn't expect Obama to peel off his clothing and streak gibbering across the north lawn of the White House for all the press to see just yet – but it's clear that the pressure is getting to him, and to his spoiled, radical brat pack.
Heaven knows we've had other mediocre men in the Oval Office, but I'm pretty certain we've never had another who was so contemptuous of our nation. Whether it's because of his family background, his education or his unfortunate choice of mentors, it's as if he views America through the wrong end of a telescope. Instead of a great, good and generous country, he sees something small and distant, hardly worth his time and certainly undeserving of his respect and devotion. Ask him what he likes most about America and I suspect his honest answer would be our golf courses.
How do we explain the current sorry spectacle of a highly intelligent president who repeatedly makes bad choices and decisions? Make no mistake about it – President Obama has done just that. Ever pause and wonder how ostensibly perspicacious individuals can show remarkable errors in judgment? History is filled with people like this, proving repeatedly intelligence is no guarantee of good judgment and decision-making. Why?
His high intelligence (fast CPU) notwithstanding, President Obama is handicapped by faulty data and bad programming – both indelibly imprinted upon him by his life-long studies and associations: his mentor, communist Frank Marshall Davis, the writings of communist Saul Alinsky, the rantings of black liberation theology proponent the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and associations with former Weatherman radical terrorist Bill Ayers, plus many more. Is it small wonder then that Obama does things no other president has ever done before? He grovels and apologizes to the world for America's "arrogance" and "mistakes," reaches out to the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad, snubs the U.K., brings sanctions against Honduras for ousting Chavez wannabe Zelaya, offering unwavering support for the NEA, SEIU and UAW (a root cause of GM's downfall) while openly supporting a socialist single-payer health-care system and redistribution of wealth.
So then why did we elect Obama? Continuing metaphorically, the answer lies in the 1960s, when the American body politic was infected by the self-replicating, insidious virus of liberalism. Spawned and nurtured in liberal academia, this virus and its other iterations – socialism and progressivism – has worked its way into every aspect of our society, while being enthusiastically embraced and promoted by a vacuous, nonetheless arrogant liberal media. Consequently, over the intervening decades we have been assaulted and benumbed by a seemingly endless concatenation of liberalism's ruinous policies and ideologies: affirmative action, forced busing, dumbed-down public schools, proliferating entitlements, environmental extremism, sanctuary cities, gay marriage, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, Afro-centrism, political correctness and a lot more. Capping the resultant zeitgeist was white guilt – making Barack Obama a shoo-in in 2008.
It is a well-established fact that $400 million, coupled with a shrewd marketing team, can place a man with zero executive experience and less than five years of legislative background into the seat behind the Oval Office desk. It's a seat from which a young, inexperienced man is making the decisions that are fundamentally changing America forever, a seat of power like no other. How did he get there? Money and manipulation.
MRC Again Obssesses Over Supposedly Excessive Gayness Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center operates under the assumption that any media coverage that is not explicitly anti-gay is, thus, "pro-gay" (and also complains that anti-gay activists are described as anti-gay activists). That peculiar definition showed itself in the MRC empire over the past few days.
An Oct. 22 NewsBusters post by Matthew Balan asserted:
CNN continued its promotion of the left-wing agenda of homosexual activist groups by devoting five segments on Wednesday to promoting GLAAD's "Spirit Day" or "Wear Purple Day." The network promoted the organization's website for the special day, which, as anchor John Roberts described it, was organized "to show support for gay and lesbian youth and honor teens who have taken their lives in recent weeks."
Balan doesn't explain why that is so horrible, beyond the unspoken apparent belief that nothing good about gays should be said on TV.
The next day, Tim Graham weirdly gloated that "Despite CNN committing five segments to helping the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) celebrate the new 'Spirit Day' against anti-gay bullying, GLAAD somehow left CNN out of their list of participating TV 'news' outlets."
Over at CNSNews.com, an Oct. 25 article by Michael Chapman on President Obama's message for It Gets Better Project aimed at countering the bullying of gay youth carries the headline, "Obama Records Pro-Gay Video Message for Youth."
Huh? Because Obama doesn't want gay teens to kill themselves, that's "pro-gay"? Apparently, surviving adolescence is not an optimal outcome for gay youth as far as CNS is concerned.
This was joined by an article by Eric Scheiner complaining that "Facebook announced on October 19th, that it’s working with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN) to prevent and remove what it considers anti-gay comments from it’s social website. However, Facebook still includes pages with such names as 'I Hate the Pope,' "I Hate Conservatives,' and 'I Hate Democrats.'"
Alan Caruba writes in his Oct. 25 CNSNews.com column:
Big Government kept getting bigger as agencies such as the Security Exchange Commission increased its budget by twenty percent to $1.2 billion, more than triple its size in 2000. It is expected to increase by more than one thousand people to about 4,700 regulators, a 36% increase from 2007.
This is the same SEC that failed to spot Bernie Madoff’s $50-billion Ponzi scheme and which failed to do anything about the “toxic assets” that led to the government bailout of banks, investment firms, and AIG, an insurance company.
Did Caruba not consider the possibility that the reason the SEC is expanding is in order to address deficiencies that kept it from adequately recognizing the Madoff scandal, et al?
One can only marvel at folks like Obama who are so caught up in their hatred that they overlook the obvious.
WND's Evidence-Free War on Kinsey Topic: WorldNetDaily
Over the past week, WorldNetDaily launched its latest salvo against long-dead sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, this time promoting a claim by a woman who says Kinsey paid her father "to rape her and then report to him on the attacks." But the story lacks evidence to support it, and reporter Brian Fitzpatrick makes no effort to contact the Kinsey Institute for a response.
In one interview transcript, the woman, using the psuedonym "Esther White," makes the allegation based on childhood memories. The woman's statements are littered with qualifiers (emphasis added):
"I think that's when they made the deal to use the information they got before for Kinsey's second book, the one about women."
"I think the Kinsey people at IU talked my grandfather into getting involved."
"He realized he had been duped by Kinsey, I think."
"They had to do the charting first, then they got paid for it. The check was probably $6,000."
There's no mention by Fitzpatrick of any evidence that would substantiate the woman's claims; Fitzpatrick and WND are merely taking the woman at her word.
Fitzpatrick's lack of curiosity goes further: At no point in any of the severalarticles he wrote in his series of attacks does he even bother to contact the Kinsey Institute for a response. Instead, he repeats previous claims by the institute that Kinsey "did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children." Fitzpatrick did, however, find time to contact numerous Kinsey critics to further the anti-Kinsey attacks.
Nevertheless, WND's Joseph Farah chimes in to portray the woman's unsubstantiated claims as "fully documented" -- even though not a shred of documentation has been presented.
All of this, of course, is in the service of trying to sell you something -- in this case, Judith Reisman's latest, WND-published anti-Kinsey screed. As we've previously detailed, Reisman has largely been discredited due to her own hateful obssession with Kinsey being put before sound research.
A real reporter would have noted Reisman's credibility problems, and also would have demanded actual evidence from the woman concerning the Kinsey link to her alleged molestation. But Fitzpatrick is not a real reporter.
But since WND is not a real news organization, he fits in perfectly.
UPDATE: Actually, WND's being even more dishonest than usual. Contrary to its portrayal of the "Esther White" story as something new, Reisman wrote in her 2003 book "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences" that she interviewed White in 1997, and that she hadtold her story in a British documentary, "Kinsey's Paedophiles," that Fitzpatrick identified as airing in 1998.
The only thing new that WND adds to the story is Fitzpatrick's own presumably recent interview with "White."
Like WND, Reisman indicates no substantive documentation to support the charges made by "White," only a "sworn statement" that she offered no further details about.
(Thanks to alert ConWebWatch reader L.C. for the tip.)
Patten's Unsubstantiated Attack on Dems Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 24 Newsmax article by serial misleader David Patten carries the headline, "2010: Democrats Set Records for Dirtiest Election Ever." Too bad that Patten doesn't actually prove this and conducts no emperical analysis to demonstrate any "records" were set.
Patten references the "extraordinarily negative tone that political campaigns are striking this year," adding:
Faced with an angry electorate and a poisonous anti-incumbent zeitgeist, many Democratic incumbents feel they have no choice but to launch personal attacks against their opponents.
While Republicans have been taking aim at Democrats voting record, including their backing a $787 billion stimulus that failed to produce the promised jobs and a $500 billion cut to Medicare for Seniors, Democrats have gotten mean with ad hominen [sic] attacks.
But Patten never offers anything beyond cherry-picked anecdotal evidence to support his claim. None of the people he quotes specifically make the claim that Democratic candidates have been more negative than Republicans.
The worst-ad award may go to a group called Latinos for Reform. It targets Hispanics in Nevada, complaining of Democrats' broken promises. But the ad urges Hispanics in both English and Spanish to stay home on Election Day. "Don't vote this November. This is the only way to send them a clear message: You can no longer take us for granted. Don't vote." Hispanic organizations are blasting the ad as a blatant attempt at voter suppression.
But the man behind Latinos for Reform is a Republican activist. Doesn't that pretty much undermine Patten's entire premise?.