Newsbusters' Kyle Drennen is upset that CBS's Bill Plante described the Bush tax cuts passed through reconciliation as "giant":
CBS's Plante: GOP Used Reconciliation to Pass 'Controversial,' 'Giant' Tax Cuts
By Kyle Drennen (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 11:52 ET
On Monday's CBS Early Show, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on the possibility of Democrats using reconciliation to pass a health care reform bill and noted how Republicans used the procedure when they were in the majority: "In the past it has helped the majority party push through some controversial legislation. In 2001, Republicans used it to pass a giant $1.3 trillion tax cut."
A Media Research Center special report conducted from January 20 to March 31 in 2001 found that out of 94 judgements of the size of the Bush tax cuts on ABC, NBC, and CBS, "84 percent...labeled it as 'big' or 'huge' or otherwise portrayed it as large." CBS was one of the worst offenders, with various reporters describing the cuts as large a total of 14 times in that ten-week period. Then-CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather alone used the word "big" 11 times to describe the tax cuts.
Then Kyle Drennen describes President Obama's health care legislation, which the administration thinks will cost $950 billion over ten years, as "the massive ObamaCare legislation."
So, Drennen describes a $950 billion package as "massive," but gets upset when Bill Plante describes a $1.3 trillion package as "giant." Got it.
If you're going to make up poll findings, why stop at one? Here's another from Fox Nation:
That links to this Las Vegas Review-Journal article:
POLL: Obama's visit just bounced off Reid
Poll shows senator gained little ground in re-election battle
Gee, "gained little ground" doesn't sound like Obama's visit hurt Reid, does it? There's more:
But as Reid faces an uphill path to win re-election to a fifth Senate term, Obama's enthusiastic endorsement does not appear to have improved the Senate majority leader's standing among constituents, according to a new poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Reid got no bounce from Obama's visit on Feb. 19, when the president spoke highly of him at Green Valley High School and to business leaders at CityCenter, polling indicates.
"Reid was not helped, and Obama was not any more popular than he was before he came to the state," said Brad Coker, managing director at Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.
Obama's day in Vegas "did not have much of an effect" on Reid's re-election chances, notably among independent voters, Coker said.
So Fox Nation's evidence that a poll has found that Obama's visit to Nevada "hurt" Harry Reid is an article in which a pollster said Obama's visit "did not have much of an effect" on Reid.
I don't think "record low" means what Fox Nation thinks it means.
When you click through, you eventually get to this Rasmussen story, which says absolutely nothing even remotely like "Obama sinks to record low approval." And if you poke around on Rasmussen's site, you find that according to Rasmussen, Obama's approval rating is the highest it has been in nearly two weeks.
My understanding is that "record low" means "the lowest ever." What does Fox think it means?
Politico comes through with an extraordinary example of mind-reading:
Health care: Pelosi and other top House Democrats say publicly that they have the votes to push through a comprehensive package, but privately, they know they don't.
Not only is Politico -- for reasons unexplained -- certain that Democrats don't have the votes to pass health care, Politico is certain that Democrats "know" this.
Don't ask how Politico knows this. They just do.
I recently highlighted how Fox News host Greg Gutfield excitedly helped spread the lie that James O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp during his undercover ACORN sting last year.
Interviewing O'Keefe's pal Hannah Giles (who made no effort to correct the record), Gutfiled made this sizable factual error [emphasis added]:
It's amazing to me because, seriously, you guys look like you came from a frat party where it was pimps 'n' hos. I would think they just would've said, "Get out of here!" But in fact they were trying to help you set up a brothel.
Since I noted that glaring error, Gutfield, to my knowledge, has refused to acknowledge it, or correct it.
And now take a look at what Gutfield wrote at Breitbart's site, Big Hollywood, on Sept. 18, as the Fox News host hyped the breaking ACORN story:
But when two amateur journalists (in their early twenties, poorly dressed as sex workers, with under two grand in their budget) casually take down a sleazy behomoth [sic] that leeches off American taxpayers, you'd think Hollywood and the media would be all over this.
Yeah, that's completely false. Gutfield, either duped by O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart about the pimp hoax, or just making stuff up because it sounded good, claimed O'Keefe brought down ACORN making undercover videos while dressed as a "sex worker."
Last September, Gutfield ran to the front of the pack to attack ACORN, and used to pimp story to do it. Now the facts are out (not even Breitbart will defend the hoax anymore) and it's time for Gutfield and friends to come clean.
Or does Fox News and Big Hollywood not do corrections?
UPDATED: And how about the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto? He also fell for the phony pimp bait last year:
Dressing up as a pimp and prostitute in order to seek Acorn's help in starting a child sex-slavery ring wasn't Andrew Breitbart's idea. But without the Internet entrepreneur's flair for publicity, the hidden-camera sting might not have produced such impressive results.
Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt doesn't just leave the misinformation to his stable of former Bush speechwriters -- he rolls up his sleeves and gets the job done himself:
As president, however, Obama had to grapple with the reality that extending government-subsidized insurance to the working poor is not all that popular in a country where most people have insurance, from the government or from their employer.
Hiatt didn't cite a single poll or study to back up that claim. Maybe that's because if you go to PollingReport.com, you'll find four polls conducted this year that assess the public's interest in subsidizing health insurance for people who need it -- and all four found that doing so is, in fact, popular.
In February, a Newsweek poll found 59 percent support for requiring that "all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can't afford it."
A February Kaiser poll found 68 percent think it is "extremely" or "very" important to provide "financial help to lower and middle income Americans who don't get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage." Only 11 percent think it is "not too important" or "shouldn't be done at all."
An ABC/Washington Post poll found in February that 56 percent think the government should "require all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with tax credits or other aid to help low-income people pay for it." You'd think Hiatt would know about that one -- his own employer sponsored it.
And in January, a Kaiser poll found 62 percent would be more likely to support legislation that would "Expand the Medicaid program to cover everyone with incomes under 133 percent of the federal poverty level" and 57 percent would be more likely to support legislation that would "Provide financial help to people who have incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level -- about $88,000 for a family of four -- and who don't get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage."
From a March 1 post by Jim Hoft:
From the March 1 edition of CNN's American Morning:
A February 17 Politico article delved into conservatives' growing problems with the "extremist elements" of their movement and their attempts to capture the "energy" of the tea party movement and simultaneously eschew the bigotry and half-baked conspiracism that so often pop up among tea party acolytes. And, as the article points out, they're struggling to strike that balance -- the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference "nixed a panel on Obama's citizenship," but nonetheless welcomed birthers into the fold. They also allowed the super-crazy John Birch Society to cosponsor the event.
But what struck me as interesting was that the article quotes RedState.com editor Erick Erickson on the need to purge "crazy" elements from the movement, noting that the right-wing blogger banned birthers and 9-11 truthers from his website:
The attempt "to clean up our own house," as Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is necessary "because traditional press outlets have decided to spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and focus on them as if they're a large part of this tea party movement. And I don't think they are."
Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers - conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president - from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks - a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)
"At some point, you have to use the word 'crazy,'" said Erickson.
That more than anything should indicate how deeply the conservative movement has been infected by its fringe -- Erick Erickson is now calling for "crazy" people to be shunned.
That's the same Erick Erickson who called retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter a "goat f--king child molester," who called two sitting U.S. senators "healthcare suicide bombers," who praised protesters for "tell[ing] Nancy Pelosi and the Congress to send Obama to a death panel" (before furiously backtracking), and attacked President Obama's Nobel Prize as "an affirmative action quota."
And while Erickson might ban birthers and truthers from his website, he has no problem opening it up to people who compare health care reform to the attack on Pearl Harbor, who bid recently deceased politicians "Good. F
There are two reasons why Erick Erickson is writing the list of banned extremists rather than having his name written on it. First, as noted above, the conservative movement has actively embraced and courted some of its fringier elements, thus making someone like Erickson seem more mainstream by comparison. Second, Erickson has received some thoroughly undeserved credibility from CNN, which frequently and inexplicably turns to him for false, hyper-partisan political commentary.
But such is the state of the modern conservative movement, in which the guy holding the guest list also wonders when it's time for people to "march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp."
From the February 28 edition of The Drudge Report: