From The Fox Nation, accessed on March 6:
Fox Nation links goes to conservative radio host Mark Levin's effort to pressure members of congress to vote against Democratic health care reform efforts.
From the March 6 edition of Fox News' Forbes on Fox:
Because really, what else does Andrew Breitbart's crew have left?
This week, New York prosecutors announced they would not be filing any criminal charges against ACORN, because after viewing the Breitbart-sponsored undercover ACORN tapes, prosecutors couldn't find any wrongdoing. Although they reportedly did find evidence of Breitbart's crew manipulating the tapes for partisan reasons.
By my count that's the third independent review of the ACORN scandal, and not one of the reviews has found any criminal wrongdoing. So of course Breitbart's Big Government wants more independent reviews. (What ever happened to three strikes and you're out?)
So at ACORN-hating central, Big Government demanded to know why California officials, and specifically AG Jerry Brown, weren't properly investigating ACORN. (Apparently, that's the one that's really going to blow the lid of this scandal.) Big Government then takes us on a stroll down memory lane to last fall when the site launched on of its patented (i.e. utterly pointless), and painfully dumb, ACORN 'investigations,' in which some over-eager blogger basically went dumpster diving outside of the group's San Diego office and claimed to have hit the jackpot.
So anyway, here's the clarion call for a California investigation, as Big Government details all the damning anti-ACORN evidence that was rounded up in San Diego [emphasis added]:
Shortly after ACORN had been alerted to the immanent investigation as a result of AG Brown's public announcement, ACORN employees at the San Diego, CA office were caught engaging in a massive document dump on October 9, 2009. Those records were retrieved from an unsecured shared public dumpster where they had been thrown revealing sensitive personal, financial and banking information for both clients and employees in addition to revelations about the political inner workings of ACORN's relationship with major U.S. banks and labor unions.
In other words, ACORN took out the trash (i.e. "massive document dump") and then some ACORN hater went dumpster diving in search of treasure. But please note the description of the dumpster. According to Big Government, the ACORN docs were "retrieved from an unsecured shared public dumpster."
Okay, now please look at the photo of the dumpster that Big Government itself originally posted to accompany the supposed blockbuster story.
Does that dumpster look "unsecured"? Does that dumpster look "public"? It gets better, trust me. Last October, Breitbart conceded the dumpster was located "behind ACORN in San Diego." And get this: the Big Government blogger himself admitted that he drove by a no trespassing sign to get to the ACORN dumpster.
So to recap, today Big Government claims the ACORN dumpster was "unsecured" and "public." But in truth, last fall it was caged, on private property, located behind a no trespassing sign, and was raided under the cover of night.
Just another example of how Big Government's fruitless, sputtering ACORN crusade borders on the absurd.
UPDATED: Is this where I formally ask Big Government to correct its inaccurate reporting about the "unsecured" and "public" dumpster? Oh, my bad. Breitbart only demands retractions. He doesn't post them.
Behold "conservative journalism"!
Glenn Beck said many odd, fear-mongering things in tonight's special show on school indoctrination, but California was a particular target. Among other things, he claimed that "lawmakers there voted in 2008 for children to be taught by communists."
As you might expect, Beck isn't telling the whole story.
Children being "taught by communists" is not some sort of mandate, as he suggests. In 2008, the state legislature passed a bill repealing a Cold War-era state law that made "knowing membership in a communist party" by a teacher a firing offense. California was the only state in the union that allowed public employees to be dismissed for membership in a political party.
Does Beck oppose freedom of association? It appears so -- after all, it is a progressive idea.
In January, we detailed how The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, on the issue of reimported drugs. The Journal didn't mention, however, that Ross had been convicted of Medicaid fraud, for which he served nearly four years in prison and lost his license to practice medicine.
Well, Ross has struck again -- this time at The Washington Times, which published a March 4 op-ed defending the drug Avandia. (Are you getting the feeling that Ross' group is funded by the pharmaceutical industry? You would be correct.)
The Times has now issued a disavowal, also appended to the top of Ross' column:
On March, 4 2010, The Washington Times ran an oped by Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health, entitled "When senators play doctor." Dr. Ross has written for USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times previously. Dr. Ross did not disclose to the Times that he had been convicted of Medicaid fraud and, for a period of years, lost his license to practice medicine. Had the Times known these facts, we would not have run the article.
That's a good start. The problem for the Times is that it didn't make a one-time error. The March 4 op-ed is the sixth it has published in the past two years -- the others were on March 5, 2008, April 24, 2008, September 14, 2008, January 18, 2009, and March 13, 2009. A search of Nexis uncovered a total of 13 op-eds by Ross (including a book review) published by the Times since 1998.
Seems like the Times should be apologizing for publishing any op-ed by Ross, not just the most recent one.
The Times seems to be offering something of a defense by noting that "Dr. Ross has written for USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times previously." Indeed, USA Today has published Ross' writings; a search in Nexis for Ross' work at the Los Angeles Times yielded only letters to the editor and an article in which he was quoted. Seems like an apology is in order from USA Today as well (we're inclined to let the Los Angeles Times off with a warning -- a letter to the editor is not the same thing as an op-ed).
The Journal, meanwhile, could take a cue from The Washington Times' (albeit incomplete) disavowal -- even though two months has passed since Ross' op-ed appeared there, we found no evidence that the Journal has alerted its readers to his background.
P.S. It's worth noting that on the board of trustees for Ross' group is none other than Betsy McCaughey, who Media Matters recently named Health Care Misinformer of the Year. Why are we not surprised?
At least 80 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Here are his March 5 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From Glenn Beck's March 5 email newsletter:
Literature? Nope. Film? Nope. Music? Nope. Cuisine? Nope. Theater? Nope. Art? Nope.
Gay blood, gay sex scandal and that scary African-American reverend!
"Culture" brought to you courtesy of Fox Nation. Sigh.
From Sam Stein's March 5 Huffington Post article, headlined "Conservatives Turn Against Liz Cheney - As Bad As McCarthy":
The backlash is growing against Liz Cheney after she demonized Department of Justice attorneys as terrorist sympathizers for their past legal work defending Gitmo detainees -- and now it's coming from within deeply conservative legal circles.
On Friday, the conservative blog Power Line put up a post titled, "An Attack That Goes Too Far." Author Paul Mirengoff, called Cheney's effort to brand DoJ officials the "Al Qaeda 7," "vicious" and "unfounded" even if it was right to criticize defense lawyers for voluntarily doing work on behalf of Gitmo detainees.
Reached on the phone, Mirengoff offered an even sharper rebuke, contrasting what Cheney is doing to the anti-communist crusades launched by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and, in some respects, finding it worse.
"It could be worse than some of the assertions made by McCarthy, depending on some of the validity of those assertions," Mirengoff said, explaining that at least McCarthy was correct in pinpointing individuals as communist sympathizers. "It is just baseless to suggest that [these DoJ officials] share al Qaeda values... they didn't actually say it but I think it was a fair implication of what they were saying."
Mirengoff isn't alone among conservative legal theorists who think the ad campaign by Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, is distasteful. In a statement to the American Prospect, John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, called the effort "unfortunate."
"It reflects the politicization and the polarization of terrorism issues," Bellinger said. "Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be attacking officials in each other's administrations based solely on the clients they have represented in the past."
In the real world, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you're a right-wing media figure, extraordinary claims require no evidence whatsoever.
For the last few months, these people have been running around with their hair caught on fire, screaming about the "corrupt" practices the Obama administration has been supposedly using to get health care reform passed, with nothing even remotely resembling evidence to back up their claims.
First, it was former McCain aide and Weekly Standard writer Michael Goldfarb's claim that the White House was "threatening to close" Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base "to extort" Sen. Ben Nelson's vote - a bizarre, ever-shifting claim that was denied by both Nelson and the administration. (The allegation caused a two day hubbub and then died, probably because no one could come close to substantiating it. Even Goldfarb himself abruptly dropped it.)
Next, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack launched his completely baseless accusation that President Obama is buying Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform by appointing his brother, Scott Matheson, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. McCormack provided no evidence to support the allegation, and the White House and Rep. Matheson both denied the claim.
Today, it's Dick Morris launching the baseless conspiracy theory that Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is facing an ethics investigation because he voted against health care reform:
Even as Matheson basks in the glow of presidential bribery, Eric Massa, a renegade Democrat from the Southern Tier of New York State faces his wrath. Massa's sin was to vote against Obamacare. So Pelosi and the ethically-challenged House Ethics Committee are investigating him for "verbally abusing" a male member of his staff. In this age of more serious offenses, using "salty language" to express his displeasure with staff work would not seem to rank high on the list of indictable offenses. If it were, Lyndon Johnson would have been impeached. But Massa is being hung out to dry as an example to other would-be independent minded Democrats. The attacks on him have gotten so bad that Massa has announced his retirement after only one term in office.
Needless to say, Morris offers no evidence whatsoever for his claim. But get ready to watch this circulate through the right-wing blogosphere.