DOWNLOADS: (181)

PLAYS: (2048)

Embed

Let's begin with this: David Corn's new book Showdown devotes maybe a paragraph to Fox News, but to listen to the cries and howls from Bret Baier and the rest of the Fox team, you'd think the entire book was about it. Here's the teeny little excerpt they're all upset about:

“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying.

Bret Baier is simply outraged that the president could say something so utterly unfair, so outrageously false about Fox News, and Howie Kurtz rides to the rescue to back him up, taking the quote and expanding it so that it now isn't just "Fox News", but specifically "Fox News hosts."

Of course Fox News hosts don't say it outright. They just let their guests say it and fail to correct them. This is how it's done, and Corn pushed back hard on Baier with example after example after example of how wrong he was. Here is just one paragraph citing a few:

There's more (as Media Matters has documented). Donald Trump, appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show in March 2011, speculated that Obama was hiding his birth certificate because it declared he was born a Muslim. On April 26, 2011, controversial pastor Robert Jeffress onFox & Friends said, "why do 20 percent of Americans think the president is a Muslim? We'll, as my kids would say, duh." Last year, conservative radio talk show host, Lars Larson, echoing a familiar right-wing trope, said on Fox that the president shows "a whole lot of deference to Muslims and seems to forget Christians." Fox folks, of course, have gone wild over Obama's bowing before the Saudi king, and the network in 2008 pushed the false story that Obama attended an Islamic school in Indonesia.

If Howie Kurtz had an ounce of intellectual honesty, he would have given Corn an opportunity to respond to the critics who are willing to carry Fox News' water whenever so ordered. And even more than that, he wouldn't have allowed Baier's qualifying word "host" to have gone by without noting the dishonesty of shifting a quote from Fox News, the organization, to Fox News hosts.

Also? If Kurtz had even an iota of intellectual honesty, he wouldn't bring a commentator from Glenn Beck TV on the show to defend Fox. Glenn Beck and his TV channel are irrelevant, but leave it to Howie and his bookers to try to make them relevant, too. And Howie, this just makes me want to send you rotten tomatoes:

KURTZ: Now, I didn't find any example of a Fox host saying that President Obama is Muslim, so what Bret Baier said is accurate.

Guess what? I didn't find any example of David Corn or President Obama saying that either. I also had a ton of trouble finding any Fox News host who contradicted their guests' claims, but I guess that was something Howie didn't see fit to state for the record.

As we all know by now, Kurtz doesn't really function as a media critic as much as he does a media rehabilitator. It wouldn't do for Fox to be identified as the primary source for so many of the false fearmongering tales that seem to grab their viewers' attention without backing them up and giving them the old rehabilitation pitch. Never mind that senior citizens get so gripped in their fear of Obama the Muslim that they die, rather than go to the hospital. None of that matters so long as Howie can make sure Fox is immune to its critics.

It's really pathetic.

Full transcript follows, via CNN.

Continue reading »

[Note: First an appearance from Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word on this topic, below my weekly column at AJE.]

What does he want? Revenge. For what? Being born.

This is the way famous gunslinger Doc Holliday answers equally famous lawman and good friend Wyatt Earp’s inquiry - in their depiction in the movie Tombstone - into why their sworn enemy, Johnny Ringo, is such a misanthrope.

Sadly, this description would be equally accurate in explaining the actions of another Arizona transplant filled with endless rage: Senator John McCain.

I first encountered the seething side of McCain when I was writing my 2008 book, The Real McCain, which was critical of him while pointing out a then-controversial fact, one no longer in dispute among those who lionized him back then: Namely, that the Led Zeppelin-groupie relationship he then enjoyed with many in the media was based on a faulty premise.

John McCain was not a maverick (which he has since admitted after long identifying with the title), but a man driven by a need to fight. To fight for his own redemption, to fight with those who dared disagree with him, and most particularly, to fight with anyone who had delivered him a perceived humiliation of any sort. Think Yosemite Sam on a bender, or Vladimir Putin in those half-naked martial arts pictures.

Sure, McCain was also motivated by the very same political expediency which drives too many politicos, as well as coveting an appearance on the Sunday morning talk circuit, the way an ambitious twenty-something blonde does meeting Edward Pattinson, or marrying Hugh Hefner.

But the driving force for McCain has been pure vitriol and spite. When I first pointed out this inconvenient truth in my book -- that many Republicans, including some willing to go on the record, were sure McCain was motivated by demons and not decency -- I was criticized or dismissed in many quarters. Yet, it was obvious to me back then that his battles with fellow Republicans and Democrats had become personal, crusades for the eternally perturbed Abe Simpson stand-in.

I broke two stories in my book that spoke to McCain’s temperament, first that he had physically assaulted a member of his own party after taunting him (Republican Representative Rick Renzi), and second, that he had called his wife a very not-safe-for-work term of non-endearment. In perhaps an emblematic McCain moment, during a policy meeting with a fellow Republican, McCain “called the guy a ‘sh—head.’ The senator demanded an apology. McCain stood up and said, ‘I apologize, but you’re still a sh—head.’”

There’s a reason the dude was nicknamed “McNasty” in high school.

So when others still saw McCain’s breaking from President Bush on taxes, healthcare, the environment and gun control in the early 2000s as a sign of “independence,” I tried to point out what I had learned: He was just doing it because he hated Bush for beating him in the primaries. And when others saw his loss to then-Senator Barack Obama and thought he’d work with Obama to display his maverickyness once Obama was sworn in, I warned that in all likelihood we’d see McCain once again do his best Judge Elihu Smails impression.

But even I couldn’t have expected how truly ridiculous he’s become. As Deputy Political Director Michael McMurray of NBC News pointed out in a tweet just before Christmas, outside of Afghanistan, “the AZ senator didn't support any major Obama WH policy in '09-'10.” In fact, it has been much worse than that.

Continue reading »

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) speaks aloud what we all know: the tea party is the Republican Party and vice versa. After his primary defeat, he gave an interview to Mother Jones' David Corn where he spoke some plain truths. While there may be nothing in that interview we didn't really know on some level, it's pretty remarkable to have Inglis be the voice of reason.

By all measures, Inglis is a conservative's conservative. He was one of the most vocal and persistent voices in Bill Clinton's impeachment, and can be relied upon to vote against anything that supports abortion choice, or funding for government programs. A classic fiscal and issue conservative.

Yet, the tea party begs to differ.

Continue reading »

Digby goes over the case only the way he can.

David Corn writes:Why Bush Has To Fire Rove

Catch finds the White House website not hosting today's video. Big surprise there.

DOWNLOADS: (757)

PLAYS: (2173)

Embed

As Chris Matthews explored yesterday on Hardball, the Republican right is going nuts trying to claim that President Obama is "weak on terror," led by the likes of Dick Cheney and his clan. The conversation featured ex-Cheney aide Ron Christie, who mostly fumbled around trying to, as Matthews put it, "defend the indefensible". (And he didn't even mention the fact that it was Cheney himself who secretly freed two of the terrorists from Gitmo later credited with forming Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.)

Matthews also played a clip of Republican Jane Norton, a candidate for Colorado's Senate seat in 2010, taking the Cheney Offensive another step:

Matthews: This is Republican Senate candidate Jane Norton at a town hall in Colorado this week. Let’s listen because it is the same anthem.

[Video clip] Jane Norton: And what I believe is happening, Steve, is the fact that the rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens. We are seeing it in the criminal field. We are seeing it in the health care field. We are seeing it in almost every area that we are looking at.

Matthews: What do you make of that? What do you mean the lives of Americans aren't as important, that’s why there is a health care bill because the Democrats don’t care about the lives of Americans?

Here's what we make of that: These people are insane.

Transcript here:

Continue reading »

Guest roundup by Brad Jacobson of MediaBloodhound

War and Piece: Why is Israel “appeasing” Syria? And the real reason Bush is pissed at NBC.

Hullabaloo: dday digs beneath the surface of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comment that we’re “stuck” with Gitmo.

David Corn: Addressing upset Hillary supporters, Corn notes they can vote for Obama in November or “vote for a guy who will appoint Supreme Court justices likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

After Downing Street: David Lindorff on Bush’s war crimes against children. In addition, of course, to these other war crimes against them.

Booman Tribune: Interesting breakdown of November’s electoral college strategy.

Scholars and Rogues: Hilarious new footage of Bill O’Reilly’s Inside Edition blow-up. And here’s an excellent song to jumpstart your next workout. (Warning: turn down volume if at work.)

Well, that’s all for me, C&L’ers. It’s been fun filling in for Mike. And I’d like to thank him, John and Nicole for the keys. (Final programming note: Hope you can stop by MediaBloodhound this Friday for a fresh satirical dispatch from The Wounded-Courier; it’s about this guy.) Take care, everyone!

Over the weekend, William Kristol wrote a transparently ridiculous WaPo column praising Bush’s presidency. He began his love letter, “I suppose I’ll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush’s presidency will probably be a successful one.” And sure enough, Kristol was ridiculed relentlessly by those who’ve been conscious over the last six years.

But The Nation’s David Corn’s response was particularly good.

On Sept. 18, 2002, he declared that a war in Iraq “could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East.” A day later, he said Saddam Hussein was “past the finish line” in developing nuclear weapons. On Feb. 20, 2003, he said of Saddam: “He’s got weapons of mass destruction…. Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world.” On March 1, 2003 — 18 days before the invasion of Iraq — Kristol dismissed the possibility of sectarian conflict afterward. He also said, “Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president.” He maintained that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. (The running tab is now about half a trillion dollars.) On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, “We’ll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction.”

After a performance like this — and the above is only a partial review; for more details, click here — Kristol, a likeable fellow, ought to have his pundit’s license yanked. But he’s back again with a sequel: W. will be seen as a wonderful president. His latest efforts should be laughed off op-ed pages. But in the commentariat, he’s still taken seriously.

As Kevin put it, "You'd think that would have been enough to embarrass Kristol into lying low for a while. But, of course, you'd be wrong. Very, very, wrong."

John Lennon

Joe Gandleman, Jeralyn Merritt and David Corn have strong John Lennon posts...

David Corn, One more thing
Much has been made of my rather satirical post asking David Corn to explain his articles defending his friend Viveca Novak in the Valerie Plame affair. I’ve talked to David in the past and have always thought of him as a good guy and fine reporter, but I felt that since I’ve been openly critical of Tina Brown, Michael Isikoff, Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell, Howard Kurtz, and Judy Miller for either giving a free pass to fellow journalists or helping to spread propaganda-I should treat David equally. David said I "politely hinted" that he was being disingenuous and I was.

Just the other day, I learned through anonymous sources that David and Michael Isikoff are collaborating on a new book. I find this fascinating. I’m sure it will be a good read too, however as I looked to see if there was a formal announcement of the new project-I found that David wrote a similar piece defending Isikoff of criticism from Media Matters. David candidly says:

"Admittedly I have a bias in favor of a friend."

No matter how many good stories Michael writes his credibility is shot over the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky affairs. We need David in the good fight to make sure this administration and any other one is held accountable to the positions they take. If journalists come out in defense of each other after they use questionable judgement, it makes them look like a special interest group that protects its own. How can the American people trust what is written then? You can still choose to defend your buddies, that’s a choice to make, but you open yourself up to heightened scrutiny and the accusation of veiled motives when you do.

Please come back David, because if you don’t stop now you run the risk of turning into another Andrea Mitchell, who was recently quoted on the Don Imus Show saying:

Imus: "It seems unclear what you said and perhaps you can clear it up about what you said back in Oct. of 2003---
Mitchell: "I have been trying to figure out "what-the-heck" I was talking about, frankly. There is confusion because I am confused."

Froomkin:

"In Sunday’s Washington Post, the paper’s new ombudsman, Deborah Howell, writes that The Post’s political reporters don’t like my column. She states that the column is "highly opinionated and liberal" and concludes that it should no longer bear the name "White House Briefing," because the title may lead some readers to think it is the work of the paper’s reporting staff. Such a belief, Post political editor John Harris told her, dilutes the credibility of the newspaper...read on"

Do you think Bob Woodward's source exposing Valerie Plame has something to do with this? Will David Corn list all the wonderful things Dan has done in his career to help him out?

Jane writes a detailed piece on the attack of Froomkin:

"...What the WaPo writers are viewing through their Technorati tags is only a tiny crumb of a rage that threatens to sweep them into irrelevance. If they care about the preservation of superstar journalists and the politics of access above all else they blind themselves to the sea change that is taking place in how information is exchanged.

Dan Froomkin is the future. They say they want to balance him out by adding a conservative voice? That's great, just what the Mighty Wurlitzer needs, another outlet. As I've said before, this isn't about right vs. left, it's about people on both sides who are sick of the machine...read on"