The right-wing media have seized on an eight-second video clip of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) to claim he called the Constitution "silly." In fact, McDermott was criticizing Republicans for not focusing on "job creation" in favor of doing "silly" things like reading the Constitution on the House floor.
Yesterday, news broke that a bomb "capable of inflicting multiple casualties" was found along a Martin Luther King Day parade route in Spokane, Washington. The FBI has described bomb as a case of "domestic terrorism."
Today, CNN's Erick Erickson and National Review's Jim Geraghty had the following Twitter exchange:
Erickson has previously spoken of pulling shotguns on government officials and beating state legislators to a "bloody pulp for being an idiot"and written that "metaphorically speaking," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner should get "punched in the face."
In other Erickson news, CNN has chosen him to provide "insight and analysis" for its State of the Union coverage.
Interestingly, on last night's edition of CNN's John King, USA, King apologized for a guest's use of the word "crosshairs":
Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race, just a moment ago. My friend Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term "in the crosshairs" in talking about the candidates out there. We're trying-we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language. We won't always be perfect. So hold us accountable when we don't meet your standards.
So, when a CNN guest uses the term "in the crosshairs" to describe political targeting, King apologizes to his audience and says "we're trying to get away from that language." And, at the same time, CNN gives a contributor who routinely uses far more graphically violent rhetoric a plum gig analyzing the State of the Union. And remember: Last week, King hosted Erickson for a discussion of inflammatory rhetoric, and adopted Erickson's criticisms of liberals' rhetoric without ever asking Erickson about his own track record.
In a recent profile in the Weekly Standard, Mississippi Gov. Harley Barbour (R) heaped praise on the white supremacist Citizens Councils for its role in barring KKK activity in his hometown of Yazoo City. After significant criticism, Barbour later stated that "the 'Citizens Council,' is totally indefensible, as is segregation."
However, following the Weekly Standard piece, right-wing media rushed to Barbour's defense, dismissing his remarks as innocent nostalgia and decrying a left-wing smear campaign. For instance, Hot Air's AllahPundit asserted that "maybe [Barbour] was simply naïve about" the Citizens Councils' purpose.
In addition, linking to a National Review Online post defending Barbour, Fox Nation posted the headline "Haley Barbour Fends off Left-Wing Racial Smears with Ease."
Following the debate between Delaware senatorial candidates Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons, conservative media have rushed to paint the moderators as biased, either by providing no evidence or by pointing to a question that is commonly asked in debates, as proof of bias.
In the run-up to Delaware's Republican Senate primary, conservative media figures noticed that their colleagues are "lazy and unfair" "idiot[s]" and "mouthpieces for the Republican establishment" who engage in "ranting, not serious arguments" and whose commentary consists of "smear tactics," "mischaracterizations," "exaggerated claims," "slander," and "attributing sinister or corrupt motives to those who disagree with them."
In their escalating attacks on an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, conservatives in the media have resorted to using ridiculous analogies to claim that the center would somehow be offensive.
Conservative media figures have repeatedly claimed or suggested that it would be unprecedented and "corrupt" for Democrats to address "controversial" issues during Congress' lame duck session following the 2010 elections. But in 1998, Republicans impeached President Clinton during such a post-election congressional session.
NRO's Jim Geraghty tweeted this morning: "Kagan's college thesis called the socialist movement's demise 'sad but chastening.' Glenn Beck will get a month of shows out of it."
We have no doubt that Glenn Beck - he who could probably find evidence of socialism in a toothpick - will wear out a chalkboard or two with the tired myth that Elena Kagan's undergraduate thesis shows she's a socialist.
Unfortunately for Geraghty and Beck, the facts just don't bear out that claim. As we've noted:
Kagan did not express personal support for socialism or radicalism in her thesis. Rather, she explored the historical question of why socialism did not become a major political movement in the United States as it had elsewhere in the world. Kagan's thesis adviser has said that Kagan has never been a socialist, and one of her college peers described her views in college as "well within the mainstream of the ... sort of liberal, democratic, progressive tradition." Despite the fact that Kagan's thesis is publicly available, Republicans did not raise the issue during her confirmation as solicitor general, suggesting that none of them believed that she was actually a socialist.
PS - Nope, still don't have a life. Don't anticipate getting one any time soon.
From an April 2 post on NRO's The Corner by Peter Kirsanow:
In the Morning Jolt today, Jim Geraghty links to the New England Journal of Medicine survey of practicing physicians conducted a few days before passage of Obamacare. Nearly one third of respondents stated that they would leave the practice of medicine or retire early if Obamacare passed.
Well, the bill passed, and now we have the story (also noted by Jim) of the Florida doctor who has posted a sign in his office advising patients who supported Obamacare to seek treatment elsewhere. Clearly, a significant cohort of the medical profession isn't thrilled with the new health-care order.
Previously / Related:
From the Twitter account of NRO's Jim Geraghty:
Loading the player reg...
National Review Online blogger Jim Geraghty wrote that a new ad for Sen. Barack Obama cites as a source the " 'Congressional Quarterly 2007 Voting Study.' This is the same study that called Obama the most liberal lawmaker in the Senate. By citing this study, the Obama campaign seems to be dropping their objections to that characterization, or of CQ's calculation methods." In fact, Obama was "the most liberal lawmaker" according to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, not according to CQ, which measured how often senators voted with their party rather than assessing "liberal" or "conservative" votes and found that "[t]en Democrats had higher scores" on the "party unity" measure in 2007 than Obama, as PolitiFact.com has noted.