Rather than simply describing the types of coordinated attacks on healthcare reform that are happening, I thought it would be easier to understand exactly what we're dealing with if you could instead read the type of lying, manipulative, inflammatory "facts" being fed to the elderly and conservative Christians by "Godly" men like Gordon Klingenschmitt - the Navy chaplain who was canned for disobeying orders. (Or as he puts it: Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying 'in Jesus name' in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views.)

This is the new email from In Jesus' Name, the fundamentalist fundraising machine ginned up by Klingenschmitt to replace the Navy pension he lost by willfully ignoring orders:

HOT NEW PETITION to STOP OBAMA'S SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER. Please click, sign, and WE WILL FAX your petition automatically to all 52 "Blue-Dog" House Democrats and/or all 100 Senators, right away (saving you hours of labor!) and saving unborn children, grandmothers, grandfathers, and all other grand-genders created by this bill from Government-forced extermination.

Grandmas and Unborn Babies Face Extermination by Obama's "Health" Care Plan

Investors Business Daily has just exposed the Achilles' heel of Obamacare, that hostile, socialist government takeover of your hospital, doctors, children, and grandparents. In an editorial entitled, "How House Bill Runs Over Grandma," the editors report how President Obama was personally confronted by a North Carolina woman asking if "everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die."

In response Obama joked that he hadn't yet hired enough bureaucrats to conduct such an operation, yet he could not deny the New York Post's discovery the House bill "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care" (pages 425-430). In other words, your grandmother will be told, when insufficient resources are rationed to young people, that her duty to die begins with mandatory "end-of-life counseling," or as Obama explained, "encourage the use of living wills" that terminate otherwise salvageable lives prematurely through signed "do not resuscitate" (DNR) legal releases.

1) EUTHANASIA is the first result of Obama's socialist government "health" care plan.

Bankrupt state can't afford to pay for grandma's hip replacement? Obama's plan sends her a lawyer to make her sign a DNR, explaining her hastened duty to die, and obtaining her signature legally absolving him of all guilt. Euthanasia begins where capitalism ends.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION, AND WE WILL FAX ALL 52 "BLUE-DOG" DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE, AND ALL 100 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE OBAMACARE.

Widely respected Minister Rick Joyner wrote this week, after reviewing Mat Staver's analysis of H.R. 3200 "Health" care bill, voicing his strong opinion that this bill "is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed-it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke." You can read Mat Staver's line-by-line analysis of the 1000 page health care bill at the bottom of this email.

Now here's something we can do. Any readers from Florida or Virginia can file a complaint with their state bar association that Matt Staver (aka Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman, Dean and Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law) has used his position as the dean of a law school to lie about the interpretation of this bill and deliberately inflame the public dialogue. (Rebuttals here and here.)

The rest of you? Well, you can call him at one of his offices (434-592-5200, 800-671-1776) and let him know what you think.

2) Tax-payer funded ABORTION on demand is another guaranteed result.

Last week several so-called "pro-life Democrats" executed a bait and switch that will fully fund abortion on demand in the new Obamacare "health" bill. Led by compromiser and ex-pro-life Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), who was recently booted as an advisor to Democrats for Life of America for his lack of principle, the liberal House Democrats overruled conservative Republicans 30-28 to pass the hideous "Capps Amendment" to H.R.3200 in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This amendment now deceptively creates a phony accounting scheme that gives the false impression your tax-payer dollars will not subsidize abortion, while it simultaneously nationalizes free abortions for low-income urban neighborhoods, fulfilling the dream of Margaret Sanger (and her protege Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that African American babies will be the first exterminated in the government funded ovens that weed out "Populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) explained the Capps Amendment: "It's one of the most deceptive amendments I have ever seen. The bottom line is that money is fungible, and the plan itself will be subsidizing abortion-on-demand, with taxpayer funding commingled, and the numbers of abortions will go up significantly."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION, AND WE WILL FAX ALL 52 "BLUE-DOG" DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE, AND ALL 100 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE OBAMACARE.

Continue reading »

CORRECTION: Gordon Klingenschmitt has supplied documentation that states he received an honorable discharge, so I've removed the headline that stated otherwise. My apologies for getting it wrong.

There are so many lying, hypocritical fundamentalists, why, I can hardly keep track of them all. But let's start today with former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, since his fabricated tale of woe has made him such a favorite of fundies sunk deep in their persecution complex (and this known liar is sending out fundraising emails warning Christians "Grandmas and unborn babies face extinction" under "ObamaCare"):

Gordon Klingenschmitt is a far-right Christian fundamentalist who claims he sacrificed his 16-year career in the military and a million dollar pension because he was targeted for praying publicly in Jesus’ name while serving as a chaplain in the U.S. Navy:

Klingenschmitt, who now runs a Colorado Springs-based nonprofit, “The Pray in Jesus Name Project,” is also fond of boasting to his right-wing extremist followers that he demanded his own court martial because his superior officers prohibited him from praying in the name of Jesus.

But those claims are flat-out lies.

I know. You're surprised, right?

He was actually charged with disobeying an order and kicked out of the Navy for attending a political rally in front of the White House in March 2006 dressed in his Navy uniform, a violation of military regulations. Dozens of media reports over the years have since debunked Klingenschmitt’s dishonest statements about the nature of his court-martial.

Continue reading »

So there was a media kerfuffle hyped by the wingnuts yesterday, which featured none other than Bob Woodward, who's been a dangerous Villager buffoon for a very long time. He claimed he was threatened by the White House over his ridiculous piece on the sequester.

Conservatives in the media have found themselves armed with political ammunition in their battle with President Barack Obama over the impending sequester from a surprising source — Bob Woodward. The journalism icon’s fact check on the sequester in The Washington Post over the weekend and the subsequent blowback has caused a major stir, with pundits and reporters pouncing on the item. In his piece, Woodward laid the blame on the White House for the sequester, pinpointing the administration as responsible for coming up with the plan for automatic spending cuts and calling out Obama for claiming it was created by Congress...read on

His piece was factually wrong, but then Woodward took the story in a crazier direction by saying that he was threatened via email by someone high up in the White House over that piece. Politico released the email in question and it revealed that Woodward over-hyped the "threat" because it wasn't a threat at all. He just wanted to keep the story alive.

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

Bob:
I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start.

It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is different. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Gene

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today.

Best, Bob

So Woodward tells Sperling that their earlier scuffle is no big deal in his email response and then goes on to tell journalists that he was being threatened in the same email. I have two words that describes Bob in this instance:

Lying asshole.

However, Digby actually read Sperling's response to Woodward and found some terribly disappointing information about how the White House feels about cutting entitlements.

It's in their DNA:

I don't know that anyone's ever admitted that in public before or that the president was completely, shall we say, honest when he ran for his second term about that specific definition of "a balanced approach". I haven't heard anyone say publicly that the sequester "deal" as far as the White House was concerned was to cut "entitlements" in exchange for new revenues. I wonder how many members of congress were aware of this "deal" when they voted for the sequester? The public certainly wasn't.

I wish I could understand why it is so important to Barack Obama to cut these vital programs before he leaves office. It seems to be his obsession. But there you have it. It's not just in the DNA of the sequester, it seems to be in the DNA of this White House.

Wingnuts like Bill O'Reilly want America to believe that Obama only wants tax hikes to fix the sequester, but in reality that's not the truth at all. I still can't believe that it has only been the insanity of the tea partiers that has kept our safety nets safe from cuts in benefits that the president has offered so far.

Who would have thunk it?

I would never have imagined this scenario in a million years, especially if you've watched Watters antics through the years like I have. He's constantly ratf*&king groups, people and politicians that he knows Bill O'Reilly objects to, but this catch has to hurt BIllO at the core.

An FEC filing from News Corp employee Jesse Watters.

One week after the 2012 election, Fox News correspondent Jesse Watters told Bill O'Reilly that Obama voters were "zombies" who supported the president "as long as there was Obamacare, gay marriage and abortion on demand."

Per the FEC filing above, Watters, who resides in Long Island, N.Y., contributed $500 to Obama Victory Fund 2012 in late September. You'll note "News Corp.," which owns Fox News, is listed under "name of employer."

POLITICO reached out to Fox News PR to request an interview with Watters and to ask the network for comment. They did not respond.

There's no reason for this donation -- unless he's a closet Obama supporter. Isn't it sad that he has to hide his real feelings? Reminds me of a certain group of people who lived like that for a very long time.

Fox News continues their campaign of spreading propaganda about conservatives and Mitt Romney when Megyn Kelly plaintively cries to RMoney's five sons that nobody in America knows that Mitt Romney is a self-made man and not actually hatched out of the privileged class."It turns out that your dad is, in many ways, self-made."

My God, George Romney was worth a huge fortune and was Michigan royalty as their long-serving governor. If Romney fell into the kind of real hard times that average Americans do every day with no way out, George would have bailed him out as many times as was required. As it was, Romney got the privileged leg up of an expensive prep boarding school and Harvard education, courtesy of Dad's name and wealth. Many wealthy kids try to make it on their own and it's one thing for a person who has no safety net to venture out into the world, but another when you have a gold-plated safety net in the form of a rich and connected dad waiting their to catch you.

Megyn breathlessly gushes over Mitt like a love-struck puppy.

I'm sure C&L readers know that the Romney received a huge tax deduction for his dancing horse, right?

Let me start off by saying Mitt Romney is a Pathological Liar.

The New York Times reports that the Romney's took a $77,000.00 Tax Deduction on their dancing horse, Rafalca.

The Romneys declared a loss of $77,000 on their 2010 tax returns for the share in the care and feeding of Rafalca, which Mrs. Romney owns with Mr. Ebeling’s wife, Amy, and a family friend, Beth Meyers.

So it doesn't surprise me that he'd do everything in his power to distance himself from any talk about horses, but when he out-and-out makes believe he's completely unaware when Ann's own horse will run in the London games I just about gagged. Will the media ever call Romney out on his preposterous lies?

Digby:

If you wondered whether Romney really has no center, this should dispel any questions:

Mitt Romney tried to distance himself from the elite horse-dancing sport of dressage on Wednesday night, telling NBC’s Brian Williams that he doesn’t know anything about it – and doesn’t plan to watch his wife’s horse compete in the upcoming Olympics.

“It’s a big, exciting experience for my wife. I have to tell you, this is Ann’s sport,” Romney said. “I’m not even sure which day the sport goes on. She will get the chance to see it, I will not be watching the event. I hope her horse does well.”

This is low, even for him. This is his wife, to whom, by all accounts, he is completely devoted. And that was the best he could do?
Also too, he's just lying:

Romney’s coolness towards dressage is certainly a new development. The presumptive Republican nominee has talked extensively about his love of horses, and he has been deeply involved with his wife’s Olympic contender, Rafalca, in the past. The Romneys have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the horse, and Mitt himself personally picked the music that Rafalca “danced” to at the World Cup.

Even if he couldn’t attend, it would be odd for a supposed family man — and Olympic enthusiast — to be unaware of what day his wife’s horse is competing.

It's part of the Mormon history and culture to lie about everything they have to so they can protect their religion from too much scrutiny or criticism so I guess it's not a stretch for Mitt to lie even about Rafalca. It's also a clear indicator of what type of man he really is. Ann obviously is on board with this kind of prattle coming from her hubby. How hard could it be for him to have said this?

But it's absurd for them to try to hide it or pretend that it isn't a big deal for their horse to be in the Olympics --- especially since Mitt is supposedly Mr Olympics! Who do they think they're fooling?

Mitt should have just said that Ann's horse is competing and the family is very excited and hopes he brings home the Gold for the USA. Jesus, how hard is it for this guy to be a human being?

Romney will do or say anything when it comes to winning elections. When will the Villagers finally take notice?

Carly Fiorina on the Meet the Press panel:

I find the attack surprising from many perspectives. First of all, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world. The way you do that is with a job. Third, successful companies create jobs. Failing companies destroy jobs. I think President Obama is indicating what many of us have suspected for some time: he actually doesn’t understand how the economy works.

How ironic from the person who drove not one, but TWO companies into the ground and still has the chutzpah to position herself as an economic adviser.

But she's not alone.

Fiorina's comments seem eerily familiar to anyone forced to watch the Sunday shows. To wit:

Rudy Giuliani on CNN's State of the Union:

Well, I mean, the reality is that President Obama can talk about his record as president if he wants to look at something where he theoretically thinks he succeed, but he doesn't talk about his record as president. You know and I know that his campaign is running away from his record as president and basically they want to attack Romney.

When Ronald Reagan was running for re-election in '84, they spent a little time criticizing Mondale, but most of it was Morning in America, how he had turned around the country, the great successes he had because he had a record to run on. President Obama is running against -- and we have found what a president who has no experience is going to give us.

He's going to give us tremendous failure, the largest debt we've ever had, the highest levels of sustained long-term unemployment since the depression. I mean, our economy is a disaster under Obama. He vaguely knows what he's doing with regard to our economy.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (385)

PLAYS: (1613)

Embed

In case you're unfamiliar with Eric Fehrnstrom, let me introduce you to him. The original creator of the "Etch-a-Sketch" candidate, Fehrnstrom is Mitt Romney's brain, much like Karl Rove was George Bush's brain. He's counting on each and every person out there to suffer from collective amnesia, too, or just love the Etch-a-Sketch enough to appreciate it when he erases and re-draws a narrative.

Today's picture concerns the auto bailouts and Romney's role in them. Mr. Fehrnstrom would like you to forget the title of Romney's 2008 op-ed, calling to "let Detroit go bankrupt." Or his 2012 op-ed, where he reiterated his 2008 stance.

But if you don't remember those, maybe you remember the primary debates, where he sneered at the bailouts (begun under George W. Bush, by the way) as a "giveaway to the UAW." If you don't, just watch the video at the top of the page.

Today we have the New and Improved Mitt Romney position on the auto bailout, courtesy of Fehrnstrom, via The Hill:

One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.

"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.

"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."
[...]

"The fact that the auto companies today are profitable is because they've shed costs," Fehronstrom said. "The reason they shed those costs and have got their employee labor contracts less expensive is because they went through that managed bankruptcy process. It is exactly what Mitt Romney told them to do."

Welcome to the 2012 general election campaign, where up is down, right is left, wrong is right, and whatever you said yesterday is yesterday's truth because today is a new day with a new truth. This is the cynical Romney campaign at it's lying-est best.

This is an outright lie, and it wasn't Fehrnstrom going off the reservation. It was planned, it relies upon a gullible and uninformed public to accept the lie as truth because memories are too short to remember yesterday and for the most part, the part of the press that reaches the most viewers hasn't bothered to actually call a lie a lie or to pull them up short on any of the lies they've told, so why not?

This is who Mitt Romney is, and Fehrnstrom is merely amplifying it:

[Romney]’s not stupid. He’s not a stumbling, gaffe-prone doof. He’s a soulless, cynical robot who has no problem with saying exactly what he thinks voters want to hear, and he doesn’t care if the subsequent contradictions, flip-flops and nonsense are utterly obvious and transparent. Voters expect politicians to be two-faced and inconsistent, so why not say whatever it takes to make it through the week and over the next hurdle?

The now-infamous line from Romney staffer Eric Fehrnstrom about the campaign resetting its language when the general election begins — like an Etch-A-Sketch — was one of the most glaring examples of meta-cynicism in the history of modern presidential politics. Not only was Fehrnstrom describing the cynical strategy in detail in front of a national audience, but he was cynical enough to believe that voters wouldn’t care — they expect candidates to be shifty, so why the hell not?

Romney is easily the most jaded, cynical presidential politician since Richard Nixon. He operates with the hubristic attitude that voters expect him to be shifty, and therefore he’s allowed to be shifty. The expectation gives him permission to be that caricature.

The #OWS movement is really shaking up the wingnuts. Susie's post about Eric Cantor was picked up by Matt Yglesias, who adds some nice insight:

An excellent headline from Susie Madrak:

If #OWS Has No Coherent Message, How Come Eric Cantor Is Suddenly Talking About ‘Income Disparity’?

Indeed. Obviously at some point in the process of political change it matters which policies get adopted. But control of the agenda space matters too.
--
Dragging the conversation onto the terrain of inequality is a major win for the 99 Percenters

Income inequality is real because the very wealthy are bragging about just how well they're doing.

It’s also useful, for a bit of perspective, to go back to another good Times article from the summer of 2007, The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age :

These days, Mr. Weill and many of the nation’s very wealthy chief executives, entrepreneurs and financiers echo an earlier era — the Gilded Age before World War I — when powerful enterprises, dominated by men who grew immensely rich, ushered in the industrialization of the United States. The new titans often see themselves as pillars of a similarly prosperous and expansive age, one in which their successes and their philanthropy have made government less important than it once was.

The prosperity, such as it was — it never did trickle down much — is gone. But these guys still think they earned it all, and the rest of us should be grateful to have them.

This leads me to the con artist in the headline of my post. Doug Schoen has been on Fox News for some time now, claiming he represents the Democratic Party and beliefs, but as with most Fox News lefties, he's nothing more than a shill for Roger Ailes and the GOP. He published an op-ed in the WSJ and goes so far as to lie about the results of his own poll on the #OWS protesters.

Here's a little bit more about Doug Schoen's survey of 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters, which he wrote about in today's Wall Street Journal.

In the Journal column, Schoen, who is Michael Bloomberg's pollster, said the survey, conducted by a senior researcher at his firm, was the first "systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion." Its findings, which formed the basis for Schoen's conclusions about "the movement" as a whole, led him to write that Occupy Wall Street is "dangerously out of touch" with American values and that protesters are "bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies." His lead was, "President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election."

Wow, what a horrible result for a poll about #OWS. If only it had any basis in fact, instead of some fantasy projections of NewsCorp. Here in the world of reality, Schoen is simply a lying liar.
Nate Silver tweets:

Doug Schoen came to several conclusions about #OWS that are not supported by his own survey. Intellectual dishonesty.

Judd Legum writes:

Similarly, while Schoen writes that a “large majority” express “opposition to free-market capitalism,” when asked what frustrates them most about the U.S. political process, only 3 percent named “our democratic/capitalist system.” Out of 198 respondents, that amounts to five or six people, which is quite the opposite of a large majority. Here are the full results for that question:

Schoen also writes that “[s]ixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost.” But the actual question makes no mention of costs. Schoen, who bills himself as a Democrat but has effusively praised the Tea Party and advised Obama not to run for a second term, was determined to paint the Occupy Wall Street protesters as politically toxic. As a result, he grossly misrepresented the results of his poll to Wall Street Journals readers.

You can write to the WSJ editorial page and request a correction HERE.

Schoen has always been a Roger Ailes shill. The WSJ also omits Doug Schoen's ties to Fox News since he works as an analyst for the network and writes this as his bio:

Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.

Doug Schoen works for Fox News, which means he works for Rupert Murdoch and in turn, he's indirectly linked to the WSJ. The idea that he's a Democratic operative is preposterous.

Conservative pontificators are always recycled on TV no matter how ridiculous and petty they are. Tucker Carlson left CNN to start an even worse show on MSNBC after Bush was reelected that failed pretty quickly. Anyway, he soon jumped on the web and started the Daily Caller to be part of the online revolution. His site is quickly becoming a reflection of his own failed pundit career.

See, truth and facts do not matter. Greg Sargent details their latest atrocity.

Not sure I’ve ever seen anything quite like this before.

As you may have heard, the Daily Caller took a terrible hit yesterday after falsely reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is looking to hire 230,000 new “bureaucrats” — at a cost of $21 billion! — to implement new climate rules. The tale quickly went viral on the right as the latest example of Obama overreach and government run amok, and the fact that the tale was comically absurd on its face didn’t seem to slow the frenzy.

But now the Daily Caller is doubling down on the story, and the argument it’s making in its own defense is really something to behold.

To back up: As Kate Sheppard noted yesterday in her post debunking the original Daily Caller story, there are only 17,000 employees at the EPA, which alone makes the Daily Caller’s claim ridiculous. Not only that, but the legal brief that formed the basis for the Daily Caller story was actually pointing to the 230,000 new employees as a theoretical outcome to be avoided. That is, EPA was arguing that the high number of new employees would be necessary if the agency didn’t have a so-called “tailoring rule.” This rule, which actually restricts the EPA’s regulatory powers to limiting emissions from the largest greenhouse gas producers, is being challenged in court, and EPA is trying to defend it.

Case closed, right? Well, no, of course not.

Today, in response to the criticism, Daily Caller executive editor David Martosko said the publication is standing by the story:

“The EPA is well-known for expanding its reach, especially regarding greenhouse gas emissions. What’s ‘comically wrong’ is the idea that half of Washington won’t admit it. The EPA’s own court filing speaks volumes,” Martosko said in an email.

“What’s more likely: that the Obama administration’s EPA wants to limit its own power, or that it’s interested in dramatically increasing its reach and budget? Anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows the answer,” he added.

This truly is low comedy. The Daily Caller is now claiming that the original tall tale is true, simply because, well, the government regulatory apparatus by definition wants to expand rapaciously in reach and power. Once it has been established that government regulation is inherently onerous and bad and relentlessly expansionary, literally any fact at all can be pressed into service to support that unshakable overarching truth — even facts that directly contradict it. Nothing else could possibly be true, and therefore, it isn’t.

This isn’t meant in a glib way. Recognizing the absolute irrelevance of the facts at hand is central to understanding what’s really going on in situations such as these. This is an old story, but you almost never see examples in which the cynicism is quite this brazen. In this sense, the Daily Caller really has revealed a larger truth, albeit not the one it intended.

So they make stuff up and then do what conservatives usually do, they continue to promote falsehoods. Their is no lie big enough for them not to try and ferment into a full-blown Villager story like Hot Air's (read: out of thin) idiotic "Ford Gate" lie that was debunked by Ford.

Breathless thread title at Hot Air reporting a piece from a columnist from the Detroit News web site :

“Ford pulls bailout-criticism ad after pressure from Obama administration”

Much talk about about phone calls and pressure from the WH to pull a Ford ad talking about Ford not taking a bailout. Comments follow about Big Brother’s control of private industry. Great story, but it turns out to be BS as the Hot Air updates admit:

Update: Ford is responding on its Facebook page that it didn’t pull the ad under pressure, but instead had it rotate out normally. That doesn’t explain why Ford pulled it from its YouTube account, though.

Update II: Actually, it appears that Ford deleted the ad and then reposted it on Friday, for some reason, where it now has only 305 views.

Or the Solyndra nontroversy garbage:

David Roberts at Grist has a great overview today of the Solyndra nontroversy, based partly on recent polling and focus groups. The upshot? Support for solar energy remains strong even among conservatives, and the non-scandal "scandal" is basically confined to the Fox News nuts:...read on.

Snippy Tuck

The truth is that it is (it's a legal case, click the link to read the explanation),the Daily Caller has been shown to be pathetic fools --- and Tucker Carlson and his minions, like the petulant children they are, refuse to admit they were wrong.

Recall this sad little episode back in the day when Carlson would pollute the airwaves on a regular basis. That anecdote was almost certainly a total lie from beginning to end.

EDITOR'S NOTE: "Journalists" make corrections, propagandists make things up.