(h/t Heather)

Malkin once again proves that there's nothing so low that she won't do it. You may remember that she attacked 12-year-old Graeme Frost over the SCHIP vote and posted personal information about his family. Well, now she's lowering the bar and attacking an 11-year-old girl. (Malkin link here)

At least she's an equal-opportunity smear artist. I know this happened a few days ago, but I had to address it. Bob Cesca covered it with his post: Malkin and Fox News Are Stalking Children Again

It's a brand new conspiracy involving President Obama and an 11-year-old girl. The plot? To ask a question at a town hall meeting.

Scary. Run for your lives and all that.

Rewind to Tuesday afternoon when an 11-year-old girl asked President Obama a question about the "mean things" she observed on various protest signs outside. Malkin and other wingnuts swooped into action, investigating and exposing the girl's parents as -- shock, horror! -- supporters of the president. The girl's parents even donated some money and volunteered on the campaign.

Mind blowing, I know. It's like the Donald Sutherland scene in JFK.

But considering that there were literally millions of volunteers associated with the president's campaign, and considering that tickets for the event were available online where millions of supporters of the president typically hang out, it stands to reason that a few actual, you know, supporters would manage to acquire tickets.

Yet beyond this earth-shattering information uncovered by Malkin that Obama supporters attended an Obama event, there isn't any evidence whatsoever that the 11-year-old girl was coached or scripted by the White House. None. And, it goes without saying that Malkin and Fox News Channel are entirely ignorant of the fact that similar Bush events were revealed to be literally and entirely staged and scripted with attendees having to sign loyalty oaths.

Sean Hannity had Malkin on his Fox News show to try and justify her actions. I mean it's sickening. And yet networks like NBC put her on the TODAY show as if she's a credible person.

Malkin: The lie about the astroturfing is very important and I spent a lot of time today on my own blog talking about these Obamacare human stage props that OFA and HCAN have put forth. And yesterday in Portsmouth we saw it with that little girl who's mom happened to be a very invested and close ally of the Obama administration....

The lie is that she denies any astroturfing has been taking place at the town halls. I won't even post the information because it's been so heavily covered, but the words "truth and "lie" are interchangeable with Michelle so why bother giving her evidence when she clearly knows about it.

Eric Boehlert writes:

Wasn't Malkin's infamous, and creepy, 2007 Baltimore drive-by* bad enough? I guess not, because now Malkin's zeroing in on a young Massachusetts school girl. Why? Because she got to ask president Obama a question at a town hall forum. Bad idea! (She was an "in-the-tank questioner.") The girl may as well have painted a bull's eye on her back because Malkin and her online detective pals are takin' that kid down!!

Stay classy, Michelle.

Next up, Malkin steals a toddler's pacifier because his parents live in San Francisco and had an Obama bumper sticker. "It's just another cry baby socialist!"

I've heard a lot of disgusting stuff coming out of the mouths of the Zombie Plumbers, but Sarah Palin has become the Zombie Queen with this one. She sure likes her FaceBook page.

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

She's always complaining that the media attacks her family, but now it's OK for her to use her baby as a sickening talking point. What a cheap and disgusting way to use her family. She has wonderful health care and for her to utter these words is more Beckerwocky talk. We all know that whatever happens with the health care debate you can be certain that the rich will have their concierge doctors to treat them no matter what. And I'm fine with that, the rich will never have to worry so please give the rest of us some health care.

How would Malkin act if a young mother brought the remains of her dead child to Alaska and confronted Palin because she didn't have enough health insurance to cover the medical bills for her sick child? Malkin would expose her private info and the conservative movement would punish her relentlessly.

I wrote a post on election day which talked about the politics of personal destruction that Lee Atwater created and used in the most vile way imaginable. It was so successful that it spawned his heir apparent, Karl Rove who has carried the mantle proudly. They play on the prejudices of Americans in such a way as to bring out the dark underbelly of society. I said that if Obama had won the election then not only did America rise up to vote for the better man, it also repudiated the Lee Atwater school of campaigning, at least for now.

Has a real crisis beaten the Lee Atwater school of smear politics?

So today is the day we all get to find out if the Lee Atwater school of politics has been defeated by the reality of our economic situation.

It has taken a real crisis to combat the very successful campaign strategy that Atwater championed to win George H.W. Bush the White House in '88. The same techniques that Karl Rove mastered and implemented in beating McCain and then Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Will truth and reality finally win out?

I wish I could tell you that Americans henceforth will never be influenced by scurrilous personal attack ads and campaign smears in the future, but my hope today is that finally this great nation has been shocked into actually using their brains to decide who should lead us out of the wilderness that came upon due to the negligence of Conservatism. I think Americans unfortunately have a short memory span and these dirty tactics will always be with us. If Obama wins, then I do think that America have no excuses any more if they do get taken in by these cowardly tricks. So I say to you now:

Yes, We Can.

I believed that it wouldn't end with Obama's election and those who thought so were a bit naive. Well, now it's come back with a vengeance and it's sick and it's ugly, but it's real. Everything that has come out of the mouths of the conservative movement and transmitted by their conduits to the public has been targeted at racial elements in our society.

Continue reading »

Check out the above video from Neil Cavuto's show. He had on some weird work-out dude named Michael Karolchyk who has a porn lite website called "Anti Gym" and is a regular FOX guest wearing a "No Chubbies" t-shirt. He wears it a lot, but for this segment it was embarrassing and Cavuto should have objected to it. She is the Surgeon General, after all. I guess I can wear just about anything on TV now. He compared her to a man living in a cardboard box running the Fed. It's disgusting.

As soon as Dr Regina Benjamin was named as our new Surgeon General the right wing haters crawled out from under their rocks. Every single move President Obama makes is immediately transformed into some socialistic/Nazi/Witch doctor conspiracy theory which is amping up the crazies and violence is sure to follow in even greater numbers now than it already has. C&L has vigorously objected to several of President Obama's moves on policy, but the freepers even attacked the jeans he wore when he threw out the first pitch at the All Star game.

Now they've expanded their hatred and have unleashed vile attacks on Dr. Benjamin.

The only problem seems to be that some people think the face is too fat.

From her photos, it appears that Dr. Benjamin will need a generous size 18 military uniform. The anti-fat brigade has been arguing in various online comments sections about her BMI and whether or not the term obese applies. These chattering masses wonder if a country plagued by obesity should have an above average-weight woman speaking to public health.

For me the answer is a resounding yes. This country is full of above-average weight women and children struggling for dignity as well as to lose weight. Achieving either of these is not easy. (Never mind that none of these criticisms have mentioned any actual health concerns Benjamin might or might not have, instead presuming "obesity" as a catch-all for bad health.) Having a confident, big-bodied and big-spirited woman as America's family doctor could do more to improve their health than skinny HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius. It's good to know that even doctors struggle with their weight -- and lead full and active lives in spite of adversity.

Amanda Marcotte has an excellent post about this story.

Yet, as Marcotte points out, there is an increasing tendency to see all of this as yet another opportunity to marginalize and shame certain segments of society based upon appearance:

By saying this, I’m not making any health claims about weight. That discussion, while interesting, is beside the point of this post. It’s enough to know that most people strongly associate health and weight. So when disingenuous sexists start to bellyache about the dangers of letting fat women out in public, they get traction, because it’s becoming increasingly acceptable to suggest that not being perfectly healthy is a moral failing that should be punished with social disapproval, shaming, ostracism, and lowered access to society. Of course, we double down on fat people, and triple down on fat women, because of plain old prejudice, but this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Smokers, people who don’t eat right, and other people with poor health habits are also considered morally inadequate, if harder to judge because they’re harder to spot. The fetish for health management is, I suspect, a large reason that the anti-vaccination movement has taken hold. People who want an edge in the moral olympics of prevention are inventing counterintuitive (and anti-intellectual) shit to do in order to win as the bestest, most deserving of good health.

Joe Gandelman has an answer:

Dear America. Please go worry about something important, rather than whether or not the new Surgeon General looks hawt in a bikini. Trust me, there’s lots of things going on in Washington right now which are worthy of a full blown panic.

I lost 30 lbs using the Weight Watchers system, but I was always a skinny kid. It's not an easy thing to deal with and when FOX attacks overweight people, they are attacking as many teabagger/republicans as they are Democrats. But who they really are attacking are Americans. When was it a moral sin to not look like Ally McBeal?

Most people in the blogosphere know what harm Michelle Malkin causes when she posts personal information of groups or people that she disagrees with on her blog. It's a revolting practice, but that's Malkin. I exposed her when she did it to some Santa Cruz students and they asked me for some help, if you remember, back in 2006. (Here's the entire story: Malkin crosses the line Santa Cruz.)

Jane reminded me that it infuriated so many bloggers at the time that even right-wing bloggers wanted to punish her over it. An "Online Integrity" group was formed in response -- one that I would never have joined. Many of us do have ethics.

I listed many more of Malkin's horrendous behavior in outing people in this post: The right wing attacks Henrietta Hughes

Well, she's started a trend that now the NRO's Ed Whelan just practiced on an anonymous blogger who writes on Obsidian Wings. Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger

What a bastard. Yes, I almost cursed, but I have my standards...

And Whelan heads up an Ethics center, fergawdsake! That must be some kinda standards they're setting there, huh?

tbogg explains:

That is to say that publius was "irresponsible" in that he criticized Whelan and, for that crime, Whelan wants to f*&k with publius' life. Why else out him? (Publius responds) Oh course the real kicker is that Asshole Ed points out the "poor quality and substance of his [publius] blogging" when the whole problem stemmed from Whelan's inability to write a "quality" post.

(Added): Wow. I had no idea that Whelan had such an extensive history of being wrong and then acting like a whiny bitch when it was pointed out to him. It must be fun to play golf with Ed. "Mulligan!" "Mulligan again!""Whoopsie. I call mulligan."...and you still haven't left the first tee. I'm kidding of course. Whelan doesn't look athletic enough for golf....

Whelan is pond scum, but hey, Ed is a former Bush DOJ/Office of Legal Counsel official during 2001-2004 -- when that Office authorized torture, illegal surveillance and a host of other radical, disgraceful policies -- as well as a former law clerk to Antonin Scalia and current contributor to National Review. Would we expect anything less?

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

UPDATE:
Rush reacts to Newt's backtracking on Sotomayor "racist" charge: "I'm not retracting it."

LIMBAUGH: Have my words been too strong on Sotomayor? Are you asking me because Newt has retracted his -- no, my words have not been too strong. I just heard right before the program started. I didn't have a chance to do a lot of show prep late because of the Hannity interview, so I -- after the interview, I checked my email, and three members of the state-run media has sent me emails wanting my reaction to Newt's retraction of calling Sotomayor a racist, and I didn't know that he had, and I didn't know why he had retracted it, and I still don't. But -- what did he say? Why did he retract it? Did he say that he thought the word was too harsh or -- well, I have my own theory about what Newt's doing, but since I'm not doing it, I'm not going to comment.

I'm not retracting it. Nobody's refuted it. You know, they're out there saying, "It's too harsh. It's distracting, Rush. I mean, it's calling -- you know, you just don't want to use the word." Why? If the word means something -- words mean things -- and if it fits, I use it. Now, they may say, "Don't say it, Rush. Dial it back a little bit." But nobody's saying I'm wrong. Nobody's saying I'm making it up. I mean, when she says she'd do a better job than a white guy, what is it? It's racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it's still racism. She would bring a form of racism, bigotry to the court.

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

FOX News star Fred Barnes called Nancy Pelosi a liar over the issue of what she knew or didn't know about waterboarding. The CIA has not been persuasive with their smears of Pelosi because they haven't released the facts, just innuendo, to muddy up the water regarding torture. If they have the goods, well, then release it and we can talk about Nancy.

Barnes launches on a psycho-babble rant that is nonsensical and outright repulsive. He puts forth evidence of the success of torture when there isn't any, and describes Pelosi's motives like she wrote them in an op-ed. Maybe she talked to him off the record like all the Democratic sources Robert Novak always claimed to have. And let's not forget. Nancy Pelosi was not part of the torture discussion that the Bush Administration had when they decided torturing people was fine for America to be involved with. They implemented it before she was ever supposedly briefed about it. They committed crimes without her knowledge. It's all a smoke screen to take the heat of of them.
Shame on Barnes.

Glenn Greenwald wrote this a few days ago:

I'm truly amazed to watch the eruption of "controversy" today over the fact that Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on various aspects of the CIA's interrogation program, as though (a) this is some sort of new revelation and (b) it has any bearing on whether there should be investigations and prosecutions into Bush crimes. As many of us have long pointed out, the extent to which Democratic leaders in Congress were complicit in Bush lawbreaking -- including torture -- is a major issue that needs resolution, and is almost certainly a key reason why there have been no investigations thus far. There are real disputes still about what these Democrats were and were not told -- how complete the briefings were, the extent to which they obfuscated rather than illuminated what the CIA was doing -- though they were obviously told enough to have warranted further action on their part, to say the least.

But what's the point of all of this? Secretly telling Nancy Pelosi that you're committing crimes doesn't mean that you have the right to do so. And the profound failures of the other institutions that are supposed to check executive lawbreaking during the Bush era -- principally Congress and the "opposition party" -- is a vital issue that demands serious examination. This dispute over what Pelosi (and Jay Rockefeller and others) knew highlights, rather than negates, the need for a meaningful investigation into what took place.

If the Republican Party wants to go on a listening tour to figure out what they need to do, they may start turning off their radios and televisions too. Every day we post about the absurdity that is the Republican Party and every day a completely new mind-numbing smear comes out.

I understand what they are doing. They feel if they keep chipping away at President Obama with nonsensical complaints, it will slowly erode his popularity. The problem they face is that they look like loons doing it, and all the polls point to the same conclusion. It's good for ratings on FOX, because those uber-loons are watching the little horde of Republican lunatics in action with a fervent glee, but mainstream America is laughing at them.

The new one is that Obama had the nerve, the nerve I tell you! of ordering Dijon mustard with his overcooked burger, and the media is covering up that fact.

As usual, Sean Hannity and the right wingnutosphere are all over it like Dijon on fries.

Following President Obama's May 5 visit to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized Obama as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? ... The guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?" In their discussions of Obama's burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, and Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for the mustard.

I happen to like the spicy taste of Dijon too. Hey. I noticed there's a Hate Hannity Hotline. I hope I make it there sometimes. He's too cowardly to have me on his show, so I'd really like to make the Hotline.

TIME magazine rips the Republican Party apart as Rep. Patrick McHenry says that Reaganism is dead.

Continue reading »

So, how well-liked do you think Rush Limbaugh is? Shane Murphy, who was kidnapped by the Somalian Pirates, isn't one of his fans:

Shane Murphy, the second-in-command aboard the American merchant ship seized by pirates, lashed out at Rush Limbaugh for the talk show host's racial characterization in discussing the rescue of the ship's captain by the Navy.

Murphy, who returned to his Seekonk, Mass., home Friday, called Limbaugh a purveyor of "hate speech."

In commenting on the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips by the Navy Seals who shot and killed the three Somali pirates who were holding him captive, Limbaugh generated controversy when he called the pirates "black teenagers."

"There you have it, three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama," said Limbaugh according to a transcript of an April 14 broadcast on his Web site.

"Just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas," Limbaugh said.

Murphy said Limbaugh's remarks were unacceptable.

"It feels great to be home," Murphy said. "With the exception of Rush Limbaugh who is trying to make this into a race issue. It's disgusting."

"The president did the right thing. It's a war. It's about good versus evil. And what you (Limbaugh) said is evil, that is hate speech. I won't tolerate it," Murphy said.

Good for Shane, because what Limbaugh said was disgusting. But then, that's what we long ago learned to expect from RushBo.

(AP photo)

Oh Lord, thank you:

A conservative faction of the Republican National Committee is urging the GOP to take a harder line against both Democrats and wayward Republicans, drafting a resolution to rename the opposition the “Democrat Socialist Party” and moving to rebuke the three Republican senators who supported the stimulus package.

In an e-mail sent Wednesday to the 168 voting members of the committee, RNC member James Bopp, Jr. accused President Obama of wanting “to restructure American society along socialist ideals.”

“The proposed resolution acknowledges that and calls upon the Democrats to be truthful and honest with the American people by renaming themselves the Democrat Socialist Party,” wrote Bopp, the Republican committeeman from Indiana. “Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire’ galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism.”

Didn't they already try that during the general election? We can only count our blessings that the members of the RNC want to keep running down the socialism road as a path to their salvation. Since the Republicans constantly attack Hugo Chavez, it's frakkin' hysterical that Republicans are less popular than Venezuela. The more they run down these extremist roads, the lower The Republican Teabagger Party will fall.

The Teabagger King attacked President Obama because he actually shook hands with Hugo Chavez and tried to make into an international ordeal except only his teabagging compatriots bought into his lies. ABC News did a little digging and found this on Newt's own website.

On NBC's "Today" show this morning, Gingrich criticized what he called a "weakness" in the emerging Obama foreign policy, saying that the pictures of Obama and Chavez will be used to demonstrate that Obama is "friends" with an anti-American regime.


Asked specifically about whether there's a value to having a diplomatic relationship with an enemy, like the US did with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War, Gingrich said:

"We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian dictators. We understood who they were. I'm not against him talking to Chavez. But I think you ought to talk to Chavez in a cold and distant way."

But Gingrich sounded a bit different about the potential political value of laughter when talking about his political idol, Ronald Reagan.

As recounted in a recent interview highlighted on Gingrich's own Web site, Gingrich fondly recalled the way that Reagan shared jokes with Mikhail Gorbachev.


In the interview, Gingrich refers to a favorite picture with himself and the late president: "One of the most memorable [moments] is actually a picture hanging on the wall of my family room. The two of us are on Air Force One. We're both in shirtsleeves. We both have our arms crossed and we're laughing. We're laughing because Reagan has told another joke. Reagan collected jokes, particularly about the Soviet Union."


Gingrich recalled a joke about "the man who tells a reporter, 'I have as much freedom in the Soviet Union as I have in Washington.' The reporter says, 'What do you mean?' He says, 'Well, I can get up in front of the Kremlin and I can say that Ronald Reagan is doing a terrible job. And I can get in front of the White House and say Ronald Reagan is doing a terrible job. See, I'm totally free.' . . . . Reagan told those stories to Gorbachev."

You almost have to admire the lies he's willing to tell just to get his teabagger party all hot and bothered.

Dick Cheney joined Sean Hannity last night on FOX in one of his "exclusive" interviews with FOX and claimed that President Obama's hand shake with Hugo Chavez along with his other trips out of the country are making him appear like a "weak" President which will lead the world to take advantage of him. Have you ever seen an ex-VP, who was basically booed out of the White House come out so fast and so vicious in the usual "politics of personal destruction?" It truly is embarrassing. Hannity as usual clipped Obama's statements and did his usual character assassinations in keeping with the hackery that he's known for.

Hannity: We have a President who's critical of our economic system, he's apologizing seemingly for our super power status around the world. Apologizing for America in general. It's been described as going on an "apologizing tour" and doesn't seem to like to tell the good story of America...

I guess I've been concerned the way we have been presented overseas..

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” and could lead “foes” of the U.S. to “think they’re dealing with a weak president.”

Cheney: I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth,” “And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they’re dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America’s interests.

This was a very touching moment for the VICE, him being all worried for President Obama and all.

I haven't been able to get myself to watch much of Hannity since Colmes left. Hannity's America, which ran on Sundays when they were still a team, was just so depraved, but I did see this one. Hannity does his usual smear job on President Obama by making sure to edit out his full comment to make it appear that Obama was blaming America first while he was in Europe. It's just so typical of him. I would expect no less. Even Howard Kurtz attacked him over it even, if his critique was a bit tame:

Fox's Sean Hannity played a bite from that speech. Let's take a look at that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

HANNITY: And the liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive.

KURTZ: But in the very next sentence, the president of the United States said, "But in Europe, there is also an anti-Americanism that can be casual but can also be insidious."

And Sean Hannity's entitled to any opinion he wants. If he wants to criticize Obama for talking about American arrogance, that is fine. But he didn't play the second part of the sound bite, and I thought that was not quite fair.

Hannity completely misrepresented what President Obama said or meant. It was a complete lie and smear job. Saying it was not "quite fair" is so milquetoast, but that's about the best we can hope for. I have another clip coming that is very puzzling indeed regarding Hannity and Co. Howard Kurtz always seems to defend FOX and their GOP-led brigade.

Media Matters has more:

On the April 3 edition of his Fox News television program, Sean Hannity played a clip of President Obama saying in an April 3 speech in Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Hannity then said: "And the liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive." Hannity later asked: "Why is there this anti-Americanism in Europe?" In fact, immediately after the part of the speech Hannity played, Obama criticized anti-Americanism in Europe as well as Europeans who "choose to blame America for much of what's bad."...read on.

Think Progress writes that Hannity compared Obama to the Dixie Chicks:

HANNITY: You know, I’m going to — I resent this. When you consider…all we have done just in the last century alone to save Europe from themselves. I resent this. I think it’s outrageous, the media’s ignored it. But don’t you think this is like the Dixie Chicks? […]

The Dixie Chicks were embarrassed by George Bush and so, by the end of his tenure, were most Americans. They had a point, and didn't edit speeches of Bush to make their point. Yet on Monday night, Hannity was still harping on the same lie.

They will never give up, even if they have to spend every night of the rest of their lives lying through their teeth.

[media=7715]

Bill O'Reilly's ambush tactics reached new lows when Jesse Watters, King of the Ambushing Producers chased down blogger Amanda Terkel at Think Progress while she was on vacation. What makes these tactics even more despicable is the fact that Bill O'Reilly is sending his minions to his victims' homes, vacation spots, parking lots -- you name it -- just to fulfill the odious mission of being smear mercenaries. And his motives are all too clear: REVENGE. He even violates his own 'ambush policy' regarding these intimidation practices.

According to the O'Reilly Factor website, Bill O'Reilly will address "why ... the far left, in cahoots with NBC News, hurt a rape victim and her family." The post appears to be a reference to an "ambush" interview of the Center for American Progress' Amanda Terkel reportedly conducted by Factor producer Jesse Watters. But O'Reilly has previously suggested that the "ambush journalism" conducted by his producers is limited to targeting "public servants" and stated that prior to those "ambush" interviews, subjects would either be asked on the program or asked "to issue a clear statement explaining their actions."

In this 87-second clip, we've highlighted many instances where Bill O'Reilly's producers harass and attack journalists, whistleblowers, judges, politicians, and bloggers who do not share Bill O'Reilly's political views or just openly criticize him. It's all about intimidation plain and simple, and the falafel is now out of the bag. David Neiwert calls it "Gobsmacking," but whatever phrase you want to use, it's very ugly and it is a flagrant abuse of media power. Just in case you come in happen to come in contact with O'Reilly's ambush producers, here's:The Complete Guide on How to Deal with Bill O'Reilly's ambush producers Jesse Watters is so proud of his actions that he's compiled a list of some of the people he has ambushed online, called:

Producer's Notebook: Ambushed

Take a quick look at his handiwork, but he does leave out a few more notable ones:

Anti-war activist and amateur t-shirt salesman Dan Frazier THE CRIME: Selling t-shirts with the names of 1,700 who died in the war with the words “Bush lied, they died” on it. Great Barringon, MA: THE CRIME: Being “environmental alarmists,” hating Christmas. Cynthia Tucker: CRIME: She didn't love Sarah Palin. Scott McClellan THE CRIME: Accusing President Bush and Vice President Cheney of “lying” about Valerie Plame. The Factor, despite travelling to McClellan’s house, was unable to get him on camera.

Continue reading »