ConWeb Embraces Bogus, Extremist Wis. Election Report
Topic: The ConWeb

When a Republican-generated report in Wisconsin called for overturning the 2020 presidential election because a foundation funded by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg donated money to help finance putting on elections, some of which went to get-out-the-vote efforts, the usual ConWeb suspects -- and even some unusual ones -- embraced it. Of the former, Bob Unruh gushed in a March 1 WorldNetDaily article:

It's already been confirmed by a study that Mark Zuckerberg's decision to donate some $420 million to various leftist elections officials across America to "help" them accommodate COVID during the 2020 president race essentially "bought" the vote for Joe Biden.

Now a report from the Office of Special Counsel in the state of Wisconsin has determined that those actions also violated the state's bribery statutes.

Margot Cleveland at the Federalist has posted an explanation of the stunning verdict.

In Wisconsin, Zuckerberg's money, some $9 million, went "solely to five Democratic strongholds" and the special counsel's report to the Wisconsin Assembly said those actions violated the ban on bribes.

[...]

The report, 136 pages, said it was not challenging the certification of the 2020 results in Wisconsin, one of several battleground states that went narrowly for Joe Biden. Its goal, instead, is to recommend ways to avoid another election that results from criminal activity.

Unruh is lying. The author of the report, Michael Gableman, argued in a hearing discussing the report that the Wisconsin legislature "ought to take a very hard look at the option of decertification of the 2020 Wisconsin presidential election," and the report itself offered instructions on how it thinks that can be done.

Unruh then highlighted the report's key claim that money went to the apparently horrible offense to encouraging people to vote:

The Federalist reported, "According to the report, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg providing financing that allowed the Center for Tech and Civic Life to offer nearly $9 million in 'Zuck Bucks' to Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay counties. In exchange, the 'Zuckerberg 5,' as the report called the counties, in effect, operated Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts. Those grant funds then paid for illegal drop boxes to be placed in Democratic voting strongholds."

But as the Washington Post's Philip Bump noted, the report's idea that it's somehow "cheating" or even illegal to encourage people to vote -- particiluarly if those people voted for a candidate opposed by the report's author -- is dumb:

Well, if you want to increase turnout among less frequent voters, you’re going to target groups that turn out less often, which, given the change from 2012 to 2016, means focusing on counties that have more non-White voters to turnout. In Wisconsin, that means counties such as Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Dane, Sawyer, Brown, Ashland and Rock. Each of those counties has a non-White population that makes up at least a fifth of the population. Understandably, then, an effort to bolster election access in Wisconsin focused on the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay — in Milwaukee, Dane, Racine, Kenosha and Brown counties.

Would increasing turnout among low-propensity voters in those places probably increase the number of Biden voters? Yes. Is that cheating? Of course not. These efforts aren’t suppression of White turnout or giving non-White voters some sort of unfair leg up. Instead, they’re efforts to reduce the barriers that cause poorer, non-White citizens to vote less often.

That’s not how Gableman frames the efforts. His report is blatantly obvious in its efforts to imply wrongdoing. ... The “Zuckerberg 5” sounds like a domestic terror cell from the 1960s, which is the goal.

Bump went on to note that Gableman portrayed efforts to increase turnout as an inherently partisan Democreatic effort, even though turnout for Trump increased as well, and that turnout for Democrats was up nationally, not just in Wisconsin. Bump also pointed out that Gableman's effort to portray money to municipalities to help increase turnout as "bribery" has already been rejected as a valid legal theory. Bump concluded:

Here again, nearly 500 days after the 2020 election, we see a familiar pattern play out. Republican elected officials want to make Trump supporters happy by treating their unfounded claims of fraud as serious rather than actually confronting those claims. They hire an investigator who is starting from the conclusion that votes were stolen, here. Then the investigation serves as a giant, costly smoke machine so that the investigator can tell the legislators and Republican voters that, while you can’t see it, somewhere in that cloud is a raging fire.

In this case, that fire consists of trying to increase voting among those who have historically faced institutional difficulties in doing so. If that’s cheating, then so is offering SAT tutoring to students in disadvantaged school districts. Sorry if that expands the pool of Harvard applicants your kid is competing against.

Unlike Unruh, a March 1 Newsmax article by Brian Freeman admitted that Gableman wants to overturn the eleciton, and he also included comments from the Democratic head of the Wisconsin Election Commission, which Gableman wants tio eliminate, callingthe report "full in crazy conspiracy theory."

CNSNews.com,  meanwhile, publishsed a March 3 column by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins ranting how Gableman's report exposed "bad actors" (the "bad act," of course, was to boost voter turnout), then had to parse exactly what was bad about that:

To be clear, the report does not allege widespread voter fraud. There was no violation of the "one citizen, one vote" principle. What the report does show is a well-funded effort by government-run election boards to systematically turn out more votes in regions known to lean towards one political party. Political parties and candidates are allowed to do this; in fact, GOTV efforts are essential parts of every modern political campaign. What is illegal here is that election administrators put their thumb on the scale for one political party. In the words of the report, they "crossed the line between election administration and campaigning."

[...]

How many votes can you buy with $350 million? Possibly enough to swing a close election. But to know for certain, we would have to prove how many votes would not have been cast if the money had not been spent, and that's impossible. The money was spent unfairly, but this is one wrong that can't be righted retroactively -- at least, not by human judges.

Perkins' idea of "unfair," of course, is turning out voters who might vote for a candidate Perkins doesn't apporove of.

Given what a ridiculous, misleading, conspiracy-laden report it is, it's surprising that the Media Research Center embraced -- though perhaps not so surprising, given how long the MRC has been trying and failing to attack Facebook. A March 2 post by Alexander Hall -- complete with the headline "Zuck Bucks!" -- was in full spin mode, right down to uncritically repeating a description of Gableman's piece of work as an "election integrity report":

An election integrity probe reportedly found that a nonprofit funded by Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg swayed the 2020 election “in violation of Wisconsin law.” 

Could this be the scandal that shakes up America’s electoral integrity? “A 2020 election integrity probe in Wisconsin reported findings Tuesday that a nonprofit group funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg committed election bribery when it targeted $8.8 million in get-out-the-vote funds to five heavily Democratic jurisdictions,” The Washington Times reported March 2.“The report details a ‘bribery scheme’ implemented by the Chicago-based Center for Tech and Civic Life, a liberal voter advocacy group heavily funded by Mr. Zuckerberg.”

[...]

The report’s findings, if true, implicate that “Election officials in the five jurisdictions, the report found, may have broken the law ‘by not treating all voters the same in the same election … a bedrock of principle of election law.’” 

Hall has no idea if the claims are true because he made no effort to investigate it -- and neither did the article he cited. Hall conveniently chose a Washington Times article to summarize because it's a right-wing publication that can be counted on to offer conservative-friendly spin; the article includes only two paragraphs of criticism of the report buried toward the end, neither of which was substantive.

But that's what happens because the MRC cares less about being authoritative and much more about owning the libs through any means necessary, no matter how discredited and WND-esque they are.

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2022: Slant Game
Topic: The ConWeb
It's awards season, so it's time to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

ConWeb Treats Satirical Pro-LGBT Video As Deadly Serious
Topic: The ConWeb

The ConWeb -- particularly the Media Research Center -- loves to complain when right-wing "satire" is treated as fact and fact-checked accordingly (because right-wingers tend to think that what they read at the Babylon Bee is the truth and promote it as such). But a  piece of liberal satire that conforms with what conservatives believe about liberals gets treated as deadly serious.

Such is the case with a video released by the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus last month that mocks anti-LGBT right-wingers with lyrics like "We'll convert your children/Happens bit by bit/Quietly and subtlely/And you will barely notice it." The MRC's Gabriel Hays -- who absolutely hates LGBT people -- had a massive homohobic meltdown over the video, declaring it to be "grotesque" and a manifesto for the LGBT movement:

Sure, one could guess that this was going to be more LGBTQ propaganda. But viewers probably had no idea how shameful and nefarious the song was going to be.

One young, smug gay entertainer began singing: “You think we’re sinful. You fight against our rights, you say we all lead lives you can’t respect. But you’re just frightened, you think that we’ll corrupt your kids, if our agenda goes unchecked.”

(Though, in our defense, we have seen a Pride month this year featuring LGBTQ propaganda aimed at kids and even toddlers, so it’s a legitimate concern.)

And, as if to validate that concern, the choir members segued into their song’s creepy chorus: “Fine — just this once, you’re correct. We’ll convert your children. Happens bit by bit. Quietly and suddenly, and you will barely notice it.” 

Oh really now? They’re not even trying to hide it anymore, are they? It seems this was the Pride Month where the mask truly slipped.

Hays concluded by ranting, "This is what the LGBTQ movement is doing and everyone needs to be aware." Yes, Gabe, we all need to be aware of how satire works, especially since you apparently aren't.

A WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh did seem to understand there was a bit of satire going on, acknowledging that "The messaging is cast in a light that portrays anyone with moral or biblical objections to homosexuality as being unfair and intolerant" -- given that they are, an accurate interpretation. But he repeated anti-LGBT groups' overly serious interpretations of the video and falsely called the "we coming for your children" lyric a "threat" in the headline.

Meanwhile, at the MRC's "news" division, CNSNews.com,  homophobic managing editor Michael W. Chapman called on equally homophobic religious-right activist Franklin Graham to denounce it and ignore the satire:

The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus posted a video last week about how they are "coming for your children," and will "convert" them, "bit by bit." In response, Christian leader Franklin Graham said they were proclaiming the "truth about" their agenda, which is a real "threat" to families and society.

In a July 10 post on Facebook, Rev. Graham wrote, "This gay group says they're 'coming for your children' -- and they’re telling the truth about it. We knew it, but I’m surprised they admitted it."

The video was pulled after threats of violence and doxxing came in, which Graham seems pretty cool with:

"After outrage from viewers on YouTube, the group took the video down, and tried to say it was an attempt at some kind of humor," said Graham.  "I don’t see any humor, and neither do a lot of other parents and grandparents, but I see a driving agenda and a threat that is real."

Apparently, Chapman and Graham are quite OK with LGBT people being harmed or killed because of who they are. They probably see much more humor in that.

ConWeb Hypes Arrest Of 'Leftist' Rioter To Distract From Pro-Trump Nature of Capitol Riot
Topic: The ConWeb

The ConWeb has had trouble accepting that their fellow Trump supporters committed the Jan. 6 Capityol Riot (witness WorldNetDaily's attempts to blame Antifa). But when an purported leftist was arrested for his alleged role in the riot, they were ON IT.

Unsurprisingly, WND dived in deeply, first with an anonymously written Jan. 14 article:

The FBI has arrested anarchist leader John Sullivan of Utah for participating in and committing various crimes during the riot at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6.

He was quoted as saying, "We got to rip Trump from office" and "It's time for a revolution."

Videos showed Sullivan agitating the crowd and encouraging violence.

That was followed the next day with an article by Art Moore declaring that this proved Antifa provoked the riot:

The FBI's arrest of a "revolutionary" activist Thursday night has shattered the conventional narrative that the loose-knit, "anti-fascist" movement known as Antifa had nothing to do with the violence that shut down the U.S. Capitol and prompted the second impeachment of President Trump.

John Earle Sullivan of Sandy, Utah, insists he's not a "member" of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, but the activists in black bloc who were behind the estimated $2 billion in damage over the summer don't carry membership cards. In quieter moments, many explain their aim is to provoke a revolution and replace the American republic with an anarchist system in which there is no state.

[...]

Prior to Sullivan's arrest, the prominent "fact-checker" site published by the Poynter Institute, Politifact, declared there's "no evidence that the crowd was infiltrated or led by antifa activists in disguise, and specific individuals held up online as antifa activists have turned out to be Trump supporters."

In fact, BLM activists in Utah, where Sullivan is from, have said Sullivan was kicked out of the group for extreme behavior and suspected far-right ties. Observers of Sullivan at the riot have said they did not see Sullivan inciting violence.

Moore then labored to distance the rioters from purportedly real Trump supporters:

Along with anti-Trump extremists, the FBI has arrested extremists who have declared support for the president.

Among them is Jacob Chansley, the QAnon conspiracy theorist who was photographed wearing horns as he stood at the desk of Vice President Mike Pence in the Senate chamber.

However, Chansley doesn't fit the profile of a typical Trump supporter. He has explained he's a practioner of shamanism, and Reuters reported a detention memo by Justice Department lawyers in Arizona said he "has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality."

Among the mob at the Capitol were members of a "group" that has drawn the attention of the FBI ahead of the inauguration called the Boogaloo Bois.

The Atlantic reported the FBI warned earlier that boogaloos could launch attacks in state capitols this Sunday.

But the center-left magazine said "the boogaloos don't appear interested in fighting for Donald Trump — they tend to despise him, mostly because they think he panders to the police."

But Sullivan appears to have been the only non-right-winger arrested in connection to the riot, undercutting Moore's bogus contention that it was instigated by Antifa.

Moore is also being disingenuous by dismissing the "QAnon Shaman" arrested at the riot as not a true Trump supporter because "he's a practioner of shamanism." He's deliberately overlooking the QAnon part of the description, which is very much a pro-Trump movement.

CNSNews.com also glommed onto Sullivan's arrest in a Jan. 15 article by Melanie Arter touting how "A leftist activist was arrested and charged with taking part in the Jan. 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol," adding that "Sullivan told the Rolling Stone that he tried to blend in so that Trump supporters would trust him." Strangely, CNS deleted Arter's article; it's no longer in the CNS archive, and the original direct link comes up empty.

At the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog, P.J. Gladnick got all excited about Sullivan's arrest -- and his appearance on CNN after the riot but before the arrest -- in a Jan 15 post:

On January 6, after the rioting in the Capitol building, Anderson Cooper interviewed a leftist "journalist," John Sullivan, who was filming the scene when Air Force veteran, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed. Conveniently not mentioned by Cooper during the interview was the fact that Sullivan had been arrested the previous July for rioting and making threats in Provo, Utah. Somehow this important fact, which would have put Sullivan's background in the proper perspective, was skipped although CNN seemed to know enough about Sullivan to identify him as the founder of far left Insurgence USA in its transcript.

[...]

It is therefore not very surprising that this "journalist" has now been arrested for very similar activity at the Capitol that CNN somehow overlooked although his organization appears in the report of Sullivan's Provo arrest.

Interestingly, we have not seen that WND, CNS or the MRC has given another other person arrested at the riot the kind of headline coverage it gave Sullivan -- which tells us they're using Sullivan as a distraction from the fact that the rioters were, in fact, pro-Trump extremists not too much unlike themselves.

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2021: Hy-Slantie-Chloroquine
Topic: The ConWeb
It's awards season, so it's time to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

ConWeb Triggered By Harry Styles In A Dress
Topic: The ConWeb

Pop star Harry Styles did a photo shoot for Vogue magazine in which he wore dresses, and unsurprisingly, the ConWeb melted down over it. Todd Starnes ranted in a Nov. 16 WorldNetDaily column:

Harry Styles, the former boy band singer, is making national headlines in the fashion world. He's the first man to grace the cover of Vogue. He was also wearing a dress.

Mr. Styles says society should dismiss the idea that there are clothes for men and clothes for women. He went on to say that wearing ladies' garments is "amazing."

Vogue prides itself in being the industry leader when it comes to fashion and style – and if they have their say, hairy-legged men with burly chests will be painting the town red in Gucci gowns with matching handbags.

[...]

It's a direct assault on cultural norms – this idea of gender fluidity. The left wants you to believe there's no such thing as male or female. They want you to believe that you actually exist on some sort of spectrum.

They want to create a society where it's perfectly acceptable for Doris and Sally to wear jock straps. And we should celebrate if Cousin Leroy meanders through Walmart wearing ladies' unmentionables.

At CNSNews.com, its favorite dishonest black conservative, Candace Owens, was given space for her own meltdown:

“There is no society that can survive without strong men,” Owens tweeted on Monday. “The East knows this. In the West, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. Bring back manly men.”

[...]

She trended on Twitter at the number two spot because of the tweet and received criticism from many fans of Styles.

“You’re pathetic,” Olivia Wilde responded to Owens. Wilde is a filmmaker who cast Styles as the lead in her upcoming movie Don’t Worry Darling.

Vox’s Carlos Maza said Owens sounded “like the pearl-clutching puritans who've been around since the 50s and 60s. Genuinely impossible for them to be cool for even one second.”

Candace tweeted after she began trending to clarify her position, “I meant: Bring back manly men. Terms like ‘toxic masculinity,’ were created by toxic females. Real women don’t do fake feminism. Sorry I’m not sorry.”

And at the Media Research Center, Sergie Daez was aghast that anyone would criticize Owens for her meltdown:

Who would look more manly? A gnarly-faced Scot who’s clad in a kilt, sporting a fierce beard, brandishing a claymore and wearing a scowl that could kill a snowflake? Or a smooth-faced boy with styled hair who’s wearing a dress that resembles a ball gown from the 1800s? 

While appearance doesn’t reveal everything about one’s character, it can send off a message about one’s beliefs. Harry Styles, British vocalist of the band One Direction, seems to think that it’s alright for men to wear dresses, as evinced by his latest photo shoot with Vogue magazine. Conservative political activist and author Candace Owens found the sight revolting, and she tweeted on November 14, “There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.”

Billboard.com reported Owens’s disgust in an article published on November 16, where they called Owens a “hater” and “conservative firebrand.” They also presented a number of tweets defending Styles from Owens’s comments, including a tweet from actress Olivia Wilde, who is known for acting in the medical drama House.

Billboard’s headline indicated that Wilde was defending Styles from Owens, but it sounded more like a childish attempt to avenge an injury.

Actually, Daez is the childish one here, responding to actor Zach Braff's tweet that people are "free to be whatever the f*** yoiu want jto be" by retorting, "Clearly it’s more important to Braff to be what one wants to be rather than to be what one is, that is, oneself," going on to further sneer, "Styles might have his own issues to deal with, but it’s important to just be yourself."

But it's clear Daez doesn't want Styles to "be yourself," especially if that self involves wearing a dress in a photo shoot.

NEW ARTICLE: Narrative Over Truth, Abortion Edition
Topic: The ConWeb
After a new documentary revealed that Roe v. Wade plaintiff Norma McCorvey said she became an anti-abortion activist because she was paid to do so, the ConWeb's anti-abortion activists sought to discredit the film. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2020: Once Upon A Time In ... Slantie-Land
Topic: The ConWeb
It's awards season, so it's time to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE: Defections In The Gay-Bashing Ranks
Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb used to be able to count on Chick-fil-A and the Hallmark Channel to be indifferent, if not hostile, to LGBT rights and issues. Now they can't, and they're a little sad about it. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2019: Into the Slantie-Verse
Topic: The ConWeb
As the web the ConWeb weaves continues to spread under new writer Donald Trump, it's time once again to highlight the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2018: The Shape of Slant
Topic: The ConWeb
As the ConWeb contorts itself into pro-Trump state media, it's time once again to honor, as it were, the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year. Read more >>

The ConWeb vs. A Fiction Writer
Topic: The ConWeb

The ConWeb really, really hates author Dan Brown.

The Media Research Center's Brent Bozell Tim Graham started their Oct. 6 column with a personal shot at him:

Dan Brown, the author of "The DaVinci Code," is back with another blockbuster anti-religion novel, and CBS "Sunday Morning" rolled out the red carpet on Oct. 1 to honor him and his massive commercial success.

The segment began with what he called his "fortress of gratitude" — his house loaded floor to ceiling, over several stories, with bookshelves ... stuffed with copies of Dan Brown's own books.

So we know who Dan Brown worships.

So Bozell and Graham hae never engaged in self-promotion in a media appearance before? They then rant further:

For all the folderol about "fake news," the media never found it necessary to challenge the veracity of Brown's scurrilous charges he posits as facts in his novels — that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child; that the Catholic Church took the human Jesus and cynically invented him as a god at the Council of Nicaea in 325; or those nonexistent "monks" in the Catholic group Opus Dei. They spent hours on ABC, CBS and NBC elaborating on Brown's "intriguing" theories, when what they were enthusiastically broadcasting was an atheist version of birtherism.

Brown's new novel, "Origin," once again features his hero, Harvard professor Robert Langdon, who tries to learn what discovery computer genius Edmond Kirsch was prepared to reveal that (as The Washington Post explains) "boldly contradicted almost every established religious doctrine, and it did so in a distressingly simple and persuasive manner."

So Bozell and Graham are mad that Brown presents fictional things as fact in a book of fiction? Isn't that the very definition of fiction?

Meanwhile, WorldNetDaily was taking even more shots at Brown. Joseph Farah huffed in his Oct. 13 column:

How do I say this politely?

Dan Brown is a fool.

The author of “The Da Vinci Code” may have sold 200 million copies of a novel based on enormous lies about the history of Christianity, but that does not mean he has wisdom.

Farah goes on to complain that Brown "did his best to make news about his latest release, “Origin,” by explaining why the Creator of the universe will not survive science, which, of course, is another way of saying God never existed except in the imaginations of man."

The same day, WND gave a platform to various and sundry fellow travelers to trash Brown. Birther pastor Carl Gallups, for instance, declared that “Dan Brown has been used as a tool of Satan for many years" because "A big chunk of his life has been dedicated to the task of minimizing and marginalizing the pure biblical message of salvation in Jesus Christ.” WND managing editor David Kupelian groused that "Brown has sold 200 million books, which I guess says something about the low state of ‘consciousness’ in today’s world" -- which sounds a little like professional jealously on Kupelian's part, since his books haven't sold 1/200th of the number Brown's have.

WND also brings on right-wing radio host Jan Markell to assert, "“Brown mocks the God who ‘sits up there and judges us.'” ... Someday Brown will be judged by that very same God and he won’t be laughing – and he won’t be mocking. He will have to say he was wrong, but it will be too late. The fires of hell will not be pleasant.”

None of these writers, by the way, offer any proof whatsoever that they have read Brown's new book, let alone "The DaVinci Code."Which means they're just bashing an undeniably popular author without knowing what they're talking about.

Scaramucci On The Job Just Long Enough for ConWeb Tributes To Him
Topic: The ConWeb

The abrupt departure of Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director after just 10 days on the job meant that the digital ink was barely dry on ConWeb tributes to his arrival.

Jerry Cave enthused in a July 29 Accuracy in Media column:

If you work in the White House and do not have the message yet, Scary Mucho is there to scare people straight on the issue of leaking. And he is not messing around.

He is sending a message to the staff that none are above suspicion or scrutiny. This is not the Obama Justice Department, where anything went, nor the Hillary Clinton State Department, where bribes and lawlessness reigned. It’s illegal to leak, and if you do so from the Trump White House now, you will be gone…no matter who you are. 

Scaramucci is not in Washington to make friends. He is here to clean up the operations of the White House and clean out those who are not on the president’s side. 

He correctly identified Priebus as a leaker and as someone who did not support the candidate and brought people into the White House who also were neverTrumpers. Those people are now on the shortest of leashes.

[...]

Washington thinks it can beat anybody, even these brash, rude New Yorkers. These New Yorkers get things done. I like their chances.

Cave offers no evidence that Scaramucci or anyone else "correctly identified" Priebus as a leaker.

Not to be outdone in the suck-up department was Ray Negron, who wrote in a July 27 Newsmax column:

Anthony Scaramucci now walks with President Trump. We are better off for it.

Whenever I reached out to Mr. Scaramucci he was always there for me. He helped to make my radio show on ESPNDeportes a better and more interesting show.

[...]

Selfishly I will miss him. I will miss his knowledge in sports that he brought to the show. I will miss how he could give and take fun-loving banter with Reggie Jackson.

I know how busy he will be but I hope he can find the time to come on the show again.

Anthony really was a big fan favorite on ESPN "Impact." Even though he was always on demand at Fox and CNBC, he always found the time to come to our show and have fun with us. He never saw us as the little guy.

Thank you Anthony Scaramucci, we will always be grateful for that. I know our country needs you more.

It looks like Scaramucci will suddenly have plenty of time to appear on Negron's show.

NEW ARTICLE -- Slanties 2017: Time to Make the Slantie Chimichangas
Topic: The ConWeb
It's time to honor (as it were) the worst ConWeb reporting and craziest ConWeb opinions of the year, with the bonus opportunity for a literal ConWeb deadpool. Read more >>

ConWeb Embraces Dishonest Report on Political Donations By 'Journalists'
Topic: The ConWeb

The Center for Public Integrity has issued a report claiming to detail how "journalists" have donated to HIllary Clinton's campaign far more than to Donald Trump's. Needless to say, the ConWeb jumped right on it.

At the Media Research Center, Tim Graham touted how "the liberal Center for Public Integrity" issued the study.(No, Tim, an organization that funded a fraudulent hit job on Al Gore and was once run by the editor of the right-wing Washington Times is not "liberal.")

WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh highlighted the finding that "journalists so far in this election season have given 27 times as much money to Hillary Clinton as to Donald Trump." Accuracy in Media's Don Irvine similarly promoted the findings, "as if we needed any further evidence that the liberal media are in the tank for Hillary Clinton." And Jason Devaney of Newsmax states that the report claims "people working in the media — which includes journalists, reporters, news editors, and TV news anchors — are opening their wallets for the former first lady."

But if you read the report closely -- which the ConWeb has no interest in doing -- it's obvious that CPI is using an overly broad definition of "journalist."

For instance, all four ConWeb reports highlighted that former ABC anchor Carole Simpson has donated $2,800 to Clinton. What CPI and the ConWeb don't make clear: Simpson left ABC in 2006 and currently works as a college professor. Insisting that Simpson continue to be held to the standards of a job she has not held for a decade -- and CPI offers no evidence that Simpson made any political donations while employed as a journalist -- is simply dishonest.

CPI also touts the donations to Clinton by talk show host Larry King, highlighted as well by AIM, Newsmax and the MRC. But has anybody ever considered King to be a "journalist"? No. More dishonesty.

In fact, the first example of an actual working journalist is the New Yorker's Emily Nussbaum. But she's a TV critic and rarely covers news or politics. But most of the working journalists in hard news that CPI cites as making political donations are employed by small local papers, not large media organizations, which generally prohibit reporters from making poltiical donations.

But because this dishonesty plays into the hands of the right-wing narrative about the evil "liberal media," the ConWeb will stick with the clickbait headline and ignore the dubious contents.