Last night, Glenn Beck's website streamed a video that it billed as a "a special prime time broadcast celebrating the 1-year anniversary of Insider Extreme," Beck's $75-a-year Web subscription service. Beck's site described the video as "an exclusive glimpse inside Glenn's New York City home as he hosts a very special dinner" with four guests to "tackle the issues the mainstream media just won't talk about."
Beck promoted the special on his Fox News show yesterday as well, encouraging viewers to visit GlennBeck.com to see "a conversation with four experts that I had the other night on what is coming in the next 12 months. It is a conversation that America must have. And not one that I expected, actually, to have when we started. It's amazing."
He was right -- it was amazing. In the course of the video, Beck and CNN's Dana Loesch expressed a baffling sympathy for anarchism. Loesch said, "I'm two steps above anarchy conservatism, just as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. I mean, really, that's really what we're supposed to be." In response, Beck said, "[W]hen you say we're two steps -- you're two steps above an anarchist -- and I think I am, too. I mean, I'm really closer to Washington than any president, even Reagan. They really were organized, controlled anarchists."
Beck also returned to drawing parallels between current conditions and the conditions that led to the Holocaust. While discussing the "better natural side of man" and the "dark side of natural man," Beck said, "[T]hey don't co-exist. I mean, there is a time when you do have to say enough is enough. And we always bury our head in the sand. We're doing -- mark my words. We are doing what we did with Nazi Germany right now. And the trains will return someplace on the earth. It will happen again. All the same seeds are here."
From the March 16 Insider Extreme anniversary webcast on GlennBeck.com:
Loading the player reg...
I'm so disappointed.
Over the weekend one of Andrew Breitbart's over-excited sites posted a breathless account about how a California Tea Party activist had been "assaulted" by a union thug and how the poor man was "forced" to go to the hospital for "x-rays and treatment for the injuries sustained." It's all part of the right-wing's dubious union = thugs campaign.
In fact, here's how the activist described the frightening encounter to a local reporter [emphasis added]:
"He bum rushed across the street, came right at us, swung his bullhorn at me, hit me in the hand and then put his hand around my throat and started choking me," Rodney Stanhope of Placerville said.
And the Breitbart blogger who originally posted on the incident excitedly promised additional reporting at the time, declaring, "Stay tuned for an in-depth write up from an eyewitness on the scene." Personally, I was very interested to see the follow-up reporting if only because much of the retelling of the "assault" appeared to have been concocted by the Tea Party activist.
Here's the clip of the encounter.
If Breitbart or his deputy Dana Loesch can please post in comments below and explain exactly at what point the Tea Party activist in the white shirt was hit with the bullhorn and then choked by the union member that would be helpful because I'm just not seeing it. And that's why I was so looking forward to the follow-up reporting that Breitbart's intrepid blogger had promised.
But for some reason it hasn't materialized.
For some reason after I highlighted how the Tea Party activist clearly exaggerated reports of his hospital "injuries" from the very brief rally encounter, and after I highighted how he seemed to have lied to the local media about being choked by a union member and hit by a bullhorn, Breitbart's site suddenly stopped hysterically hyping the tale of woe and declined to post an "in-depth write up from an eyewitness."
Instead, Breitbart's team has flushed the embarrassing story down the memory hole. Too bad Breitbart's blogger didn't flush it before the nonsense was posted.
Either that or she just lies about the the smears. Either way, it's not a flattering portrait.
We've documented how CNN's latest contributor Dana Loesch has trouble telling the truth during her nationally televised appearances. But apparently that's nothing compared to the misinformation and falsehoods she peddles on the local level as a right-wing radio show host in St. Louis with ties to the Tea Party.
This latest episode is telling in terms of just how brazen Loesch's lie was this week, and the fact that Loesch is so far out on the right-wing fringe that she's targeting local Republicans for race-baiting smears.
Here's the background, courtesySt. Louis Activist Hub [emphasis added]:
Backstory: the St. Louis Tea Party doesn't like the proposal to restore control of the St. Louis Police Department to the City of St. Louis. In fact, they dislike it so much they made a blatantly race-baiting video suggesting that the bill had something to do with the New Black Panther Party (and remember, in tea party language, New Black Panther Party = "wants to kill crackers"). In fact, the tea party even suggested that House Speaker Steve Tilley is "associated with the New Black Panther Party" because he supported the bill.
That's right, Tea Party conservatives in Missouri are claiming local Republicans (like Steve Tilley) are conspiring with the New Black Panther Party. (Don't ask.)
On Thursday, Tilley appeared on Loesch's St. Louis radio show and she assured him that he wasn't the target of a Tea Party attack:
I don't think that anyone was specifically trying to tie, like, you to the New Black Panther Party.
So on Tuesday, Loesch was helping peddle the smear that a local Republican was associated with the NBPP. Then on Thursday when the Republican appeared on her radio show, Loesch assured him nobody was trying to associate him with the NBPP.
Keep it classy Dana.
Oh, and for the record Loesch then waited until after Tilley hung up and ended his radio inteview with her before she launched into an extended attack against him.
Behold "conservative journalism."
(h/t Fired! Up Missouri)
From the February 20 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Loading the player reg...
We really are approaching laugh-or-cry territory when it comes to the increasingly unhinged members of Andrew Breitbart's farm system of wayward bloggers. I don't know if it's the lawsuit Breitbart and his colleague were recently hit with regarding the Shirley Sherrod smear campaign, or the realization that the beloved Pigford crusade is heading to the trash heap of history, but something has gone seriously wrong over there and the results are at times hysterically funny, and at times just creepy.
Basically, the new defense among Breitbart bloggers such as Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch is that if you accurately quote or characterize things they say and write, then you're guilty of smearing them and unleashing hit jobs. That's right, if you accurately quote them.
For instance, former Salon editor Joan Walsh appeared on Hardball this week and called out Breitbart blogger Hoft for his shocking blog post in which he clearly blamed CBS reporter Lara Logan for being sexually assaulted by an Egyptian mob.
Here was Walsh [emphasis added]:
There's a whole wave of people on the blogosphere, Gateway Pundit and Debbie Schlussel who are basically blaming Lara Logan for her — for what happened to her because she dared to go report on Islam, rather than treating it as this sexist, brutal religion.
Hoft's hysterical reaction? Note his whiny headline:
Outrageous. CNN's Anderson Cooper and Salon Editor Joan Walsh Smear Gateway Pundit & Common Sense
Forget that Cooper never even mentioned Hoft, so that part of the headline is a complete fabrication. (Surprise!) But how had Walsh smeared Hoft? She smeared him by accurately describing what he wrote on his website.
I cannot make this up.
Nor can I make up the fact that Hoft's colleague from Breitbart World, Dana Loesch, lashed out wildly at Media Matters on Twitter yesterday, accusing us of unleashing a "hitjob" on her.
What exactly did Media Matters do to formulate the dastardly "hitjob"? We published a research item quoting all the unkind things Loesch has said over the years about CNN ("biggest bunch of idiot blockheads"), while noting that CNN recently hired her to be a contributor. That's right, Media Matters accurately quoted Loesch's own words (she hasn't disputed any of it), therefore according to full-time victim Loesch, we authored a "hitjob."
When you take a step back from this intellectual pileup, the truth is these`wingers aren't even trying any more. I mean, they just make stuff up around the clock, Media Matters and others debunk their lame efforts within minutes, and instead of copping to the fabrications, or at least playing dumb, they've now adopted the insanely annoying shtick of playing victim: Not fair! You quoted our own words and published them for people to read. Bullies!
Really? I mean it. Really?
Recently-minted CNN contributor Dana Loesch claimed that breast pumps will be subject to the "massive excise tax" on medical devices under the health care reform law. In fact, the law exempts medical devices that are "generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use."
I'm curious: Is there a lie a conservative guest could tell on CNN that would disqualify her from subsequently being hired by CNN? I ask because CNN recently hired Dana Loesch as a contributor, after Loesch repeatedly lied to CNN viewers as a guest. And I'm not talking about little white lies, I'm talking about what may be the single greatest lie in the past three decades of American history: The up-is-down claim that broad-based income tax cuts increase government revenue.
Now, before we get to Loesch, let's spend some time on just how completely, incredibly false that claim is. It's so false, we can convincingly debunk it with one arm tied behind our backs -- that is, by relying solely on the testimony of pro-tax-cut conservatives.
This Center on Budget and Policy Priorities paper notes that Edward Lazear, chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves." CBPP further noted that "N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors and a Harvard economics professor, wrote in his well-known 1998 textbook that there is 'no credible evidence' that 'tax revenues … rise in the face of lower tax rates.' He went on to compare an economist who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a 'snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.'" (Mankiw also once wrote that Reagan advisers who claimed that tax cuts would raise revenue were "charlatans and cranks." In 2007, he stood by that assessment, writing "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.")
CBPP also noted that President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors concluded that, "although the economy grows in response to tax reductions … it is unlikely to grow so much that lost revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity." And that the Economist magazine wrote of the claim that President Bush's tax cuts would pay for themselves, "Even by the standards of political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist believes Mr. Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves."
Here's Time magazine on claims that tax cuts pay for themselves: "If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false. We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to."
Not satisfied? Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and formerly a senior economist in President Bush's CEA, told the Washington Post in 2006: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." The same Post article noted that "Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, said neither the president nor anyone else in the administration is claiming that tax cuts alone produced the unexpected surge in revenue. 'As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves,' Carroll said."
This FactCheck.org piece notes that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee On Taxation both concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue, and that Rob Portman, director of Bush's Office of Management and Budget, acknowledged as much. And more: Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." Reagan CEA Chairman Martin Feldstein: "It is not that you get more revenue by lowering tax rates, it is that you don't lose as much." Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for the CEA during the Bush administration: "No thoughtful person believes" tax cuts increase revenue, "Not a single one."
Finally, Brian Riedl, the Heritage Foundation's lead budget analyst, has acknowledged that the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts cost $1.7 trillion of the projected surplus -- and Riedl was defending those tax cuts.
In short: Even staunchly conservative advocates for tax cuts acknowledge that they don't increase revenue -- and call people who claim otherwise "charlatans and cranks" and snake oil salesmen peddling a "miracle cure."
One such charlatan is new CNN hire Dana Loesch. Back when she was just a regular guest on CNN, she routinely claimed that tax cuts increase revenue -- and even that it is "illogical" to say that tax cuts could conceivably reduce revenue. Now, even if you somehow believe -- and, remember, no serious person does -- that until you get to zero percent taxes, every tax cut either maintains or increases revenue, you still have to acknowledge that cutting taxes to zero would reduce revenue. But Dana Loesch doesn't: She claims it's "illogical" to say that tax cuts ever reduce revenue. Here's what she has said on CNN:
From the February 17 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Loading the player reg...
Last week, CNN hired Dana Loesch as a political contributor. Loesch previously called CNN "the biggest bunch of idiot blockheads," "state-run media," home to "tinfoil hats," and accused the network of having a "blatant disregard for objectivity." Loesch also wrote that Anderson Cooper got his job "by benefit of silver spoons."
From February 10 coverage of CPAC 2011:
Loading the player reg...
Last September, CNN unwittingly found themselves enmeshed in a bizarre story after correspondent Abbie Boudreau, while compiling a documentary on the emerging guerilla right-wing press, was saved from being "punked" by Andrew Breitbart protégé James O'Keefe, who allegedly had hatched a scheme to "hit on" Boudreau after luring her onto his boat. That remarkably strange incident happened not long after Breitbart released the now-infamous edited videotapes of Shirley Sherrod, which earned him widespread condemnation from all corners of the media, including CNN.
In November, after ABC invited -- and then disinvited -- Breitbart to take part in their election night coverage, Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, described Breitbart as "the conservative activist who pushed the ACORN undercover sting and posted that misleading videotape, the one that made Shirley Sherrod look like a racist," adding: "I'm not sure if Breitbart was the best choice."
CNN should by this point know better than to get involved with anything even remotely connected to Breitbart.
But it seems they haven't quite learned their lesson:
CNN is gearing up for the election season with the addition of political contributors from across the ideological spectrum. Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, conservative commentator Will Cain, and local Tea Party leader and radio talk show host Dana Loesch will appear across the network's prime time programs, as well as other dayparts and platforms.
Loesch is the editor-in-chief of Breitbart's BigJournalism.com.
Check out this painfully poorly worded passage from Dana Loesch, who edits Andrew Breitbart's site, Big Journalism. The context is her breathless report about a progressive conference call that took place in response to the right wing's latest undercover sting campaign targeting Planned Parenthood:
The majority of the call was spent discussing ways to discredit Rose because of her funding. They surmise that some group which donates to her pro-life magazine is a group donated to by a group given money by the Koch Brothers. So says people who just cashed a $1 million-dollar check from George Soros.
For the sake of argument, assuming that the Koch Brothers (I had to Google them to see exactly what it is they do and how their name isn't pronounced like the sobriquet for phallus but rather, the soda) were as ubiquitous in activism as George Soros is publicly, the greatest irony has befallen our senior fellows who hate big business and personal wealth so much: they are willing pawns in a battle between frillionaires.
So according to Loesch, she had to Google "the Koch Brothers" within the last 24 hours to see "what it is they do." That is a rather astounding admission from someone who's an editor of a political website.
Behold "conservative journalism."
In the wake of the tragic shootings in Arizona, several right-wing media figures have attacked Pima County Sheriff Dupnik for calling for an end to vitriolic rhetoric while discussing the shooting. However, the right-wing media repeatedly praised a different Arizona sheriff, Paul Babeu, who regularly engages in vitriolic attacks against President Obama and Democrats.
We already noted that Andrew Breitbart blogger Dana Loesch posted the confused claim that the New York Times, among others, "underreported" the Tea Party story last year, when in fact the Times managed to publish more than 1,000 articles and columns mentioning the Tea Party in 2010.
Well, look what else appeared on Loesch's soggy list of stories the biased mainstream media have ignored:
Obama's sagging popularity
Gosh darn it, why won't the press cover "Obama's sagging popularity"?!
Possible answer: Because when a president's approval rating remains essentially constant over a 12-month span, there's not much of a news story to cover. But that's just me thinking out loud.
Sadly for Loesch, her latest post appears on the same day that Obama climbs to a 50 percent approval rating at Gallup. But Loesch wants to know why the press won't cover Obama's sagging popularity.