Author Page | Page 38 | Media Matters for America

Chelsea Rudman

Author ››› Chelsea Rudman
  • Fox revives abortion funding falsehood to call Sestak a liar

    ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    On Fox & Friends, Michelle Malkin falsely claimed that Rep. Joe Sestak had "finesse[d] the truth" when he said that he had not supported federal funding for abortions. Malkin asserted that Sestak had done so when he "voted for Obamacare." In fact, the health care legislation Sestak supported did not expand federal funding of abortion.

  • Right-wing sexism: Meghan McCain attacked as a "self-indulgent set of mega-breasts"

    Blog ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    This Sunday saw the right-wing launch some nasty attacks on one of their own after Meghan McCain spoke out against Christine O'Donnell -- and was basically told by conservative pundits, "Sit down and shut up, woman."

    During her appearance on ABC's The Week on October 17, McCain said O'Donnell is "seen as a nutjob," and explained, "I speak as a 26-year-old woman. And my problem is that, no matter what, Christine O'Donnell is making a mockery of running for public office. She has no real history, no real success in any kind of business. And what that sends to my generation is, one day, you can just wake up and run for Senate, no matter how [much] lack of experience you have."

    What did her political discourse earn her? Misogynistic attacks from right-wing pundits. Blogger Doug Powers kicked off the mud-slinging with a post on Michelle Malkin's blog Sunday morning. He began his post with a photo of McCain that spurred controversy after she posted it on Twitter a year ago and commented, "Disregard the above photo. I'm only putting it there to remind myself to check my tire pressure later this afternoon."

    Later that day, conservative blogger Dan Riehl on his blog Riehl World View referred to McCain as "Meggie 'Big Mac' McCain" and wrote that "this self-indulgent set of mega-breasts doesn't belong anywhere near a TV studio commenting on anything."

    Jeff Poor, a staff writer for the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute, rounded out the evening by re-tweeting a conservative blogger's comment that "I swear, if Meghan McCain gets any dumber she'll be drooling on her boobs" with the remark: "Haha."

    Wow. All of these commentators would throw a fit -- rightly -- if sexist attacks were launched on Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, or Sharron Angle. If they disagree with the substance of McCain's remarks, why are they going after her body instead?

  • O'Reilly makes absurd comparison to defend his attack on Muslims

    Blog ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    Continuing to justify his fiery performance on The View yesterday, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly offered an absurd response to critics of his statement that "Muslims killed us on 9-11" by pointing out that we were actually attacked by "Muslim extremists," asking why no one says we fought "Japanese extremists" or "German extremists" during World War II.

    How did this start? During the now-infamous View session, O'Reilly asserted that "Muslims killed us on 9-11" while discussing the proposed Park 51 Islamic center. Offended View host Whoopi Goldberg asserted that "extremists" were behind the attack before she and co-host Joy Behar walked off the set. Later, O'Reilly apologized, saying, "If anyone felt that I was demeaning all Muslims, I apologize."

    Yet O'Reilly didn't drop the issue. On Fox News programs yesterday and today, he repeatedly made the absurd comparison between Muslim extremists and Japanese and German armies, saying, "Did we say in World War II, we were attacked by Japanese extremists or German extremists? Did we do that? No! ... We said, we were attacked by Japanese. We were attacked by Muslims. That's who attacked us."

    Those are so similar, Bill, except for the teeny tiny difference that World War II, was, well, a declared war between nation-states. We were bombed at Pearl Harbor by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan, and fought the German army on the Western Front. That's why we don't say, for example, that we fought "the Christians" in World War II -- while the Germans were Christian, there were plenty of Christians we weren't fighting, and so saying that we fought "the Christians" would be inappropriate. If O'Reilly would rather speak in terms of nations, why not say "the Saudis attacked us," since 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia?

    Even Karl Rove, in his capacity as a Fox News contributor, told O'Reilly the comparison was far-fetched on Fox and Friends this morning. From the October 15 edition of Fox and Friends:

    O'REILLY: I will go back to World War II, the analogy I made on The Factor last night. We didn't say Japanese extremists attacked us at Pearl Harbor. OK? And believe me when I tell you, probably most of the Japanese people didn't want any part of that war.

    ROVE: Yes, but World War II was a nation state versus nation state.


    O'REILLY: But, Karl, it doesn't matter. We're in a new world now.

    ROVE: I agree, but I think it's very important in order to --

    O'REILLY: OK? We're being attacked by a group. We're being attacked by a group.

    KILMEADE: Right. But go ahead.


    ROVE: But it is a subset of a -- we need to --

    O'REILLY: The common denominator, Karl, is that they're Muslims.


    ROVE: We need to make certain that we divorce the vast bulk of Muslims from the extremists and the radicals who were behind this -- behind terrorism because -

    O'REILLY: We also need to define that there is a problem in the Muslim world.

    ROVE: Absolutely. And when you say Muslim extremists and Muslim fanatics, and when you attack the wahhabists --

    O'REILLY: Right.


    O'REILLY: But the Muslim terrorists and the killers couldn't exist, could not exist, all right, if all the moderate Muslims would join America against them. And that is what we refuse to confront. And I'm tired of it.

    If even Karl Rove isn't buying your distorted comparison, you know it's gotta be pretty crazy.

  • NRO's Derbyshire: Public employees should not be allowed to vote

    Blog ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    No, you didn't misread that. John Derbyshire, National Review Online contributor, today rehashed his 2003 argument that nonmilitary government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote. Here's today's post, written in response to fellow contributor Pat Sajak's article about how public employees have a "conflict of interest" when voting:

    Pat Sajak: "I'm not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote ..."

    Go ahead, Pat: say it. I did, back in 2003.

    [Quoting 2003 article:] "If you let public employees vote, what do you think they are going to vote for? For more public spending, more government jobs, higher government wages. Can you vote yourself a pay raise? No, and neither can I. Bill Bureaucrat and Pam Paperpusher can, though, and they do. Bill and Pam have no problem at all with ever-swelling public budgets, with ever-expanding public services, with the creeping socialism that is slowly throttling our liberties out of existence."

    It's an idea whose time will soon come.

    Other conservative commentators, like WorldNetDaily's Robert Ringer, have also advocated taking away public employees' voting rights. Using Derbyshire and Ringer's logic, I guess anyone who uses public services -- like the post office, roads, schools, libraries, police, firefighters -- probably has a "conflict of interest" when voting. So does anyone who pays taxes.

    Elsewhere in the 2003 article, Derbyshire writes that public servants should be content with the "privilege" of working for the government: "Working for the State, or the nation, is a great privilege and an honor. It brings with it great security, since States and Nations very, very rarely go out of business. Let privilege, honor and security be rewards enough; let's not gild the lily with fripperies like voting rights."

    Lest you think he's kidding, note that public employees are hardly the only group Derbyshire thinks unworthy of such "fripperies." In a 2009 interview with Alan Colmes, he also suggested we'd "probably" be a better country if women didn't vote.

    Basically, he's saying our country would be a better place if people who don't agree with him couldn't vote. Who's "throttling our liberties out of existence," again?

  • Far right-wingers love Paladino's "view" on gays -- the one he apologized for

    Blog ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    It seems like many on the right can't stop gushing about Carl Paladino's recent remarks about homosexuality -- except, actually, Carl Paladino. Even after New York's Republican gubernatorial candidate Paladino issued an apology yesterday for his remarks to Orthodox Jewish leaders on Sunday, anti-gay conservatives keep praising his speech, which included a call to protect children from being "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option" as heterosexual marriage.

    Adding their voices to the many conservative pundits who have already applauded Paladino's comments, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah and Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey are now jumping on the bandwagon. In a post early this morning, Farah said that Paladino's comments were "perfectly reasonable" and said it's "undeniably true" that there's "an ugly, revolting side to the 'gay rights' movement." From the post:

    Paladino doesn't want kids "brainwashed," he said. Most people don't realize that is exactly what happens in many or most public schools when it comes to homosexuality. Kids are taught values that would be anathema to their parents if they only knew what was happening. That's what Paladino was saying. He said there is an ugly, revolting side to the "gay rights" movement. That is undeniably true. When candidates boast about taking their kids to "gay pride parades," you have to wonder about their sanity. These are spectacles that could never be aired in their entirety on television because of obscenity laws.

    Farah also falsely claimed that "the overwhelming number of Americans reject same-sex marriage." In fact, two recent polls -- one in September from the Associated Press, and one in August from CNN --show that a majority of Americans support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

    Jeffrey spewed similar vitriol in a post today, writing that "no prominent politician who questions the wholesomeness of same-sex sex can escape a vicious beating by the liberal elite" and that these beatings are "designed to uproot the laws and norms of our society from the immutable natural law that is the true foundation of our freedom."

    He also furthered the idea that gays want to "brainwash" children by falsely suggesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit "ruled that parents cannot opt their kindergarteners out of Massachusetts public-schools classes that teach 5-year-olds that same-sex marriage is a good thing." Actually, the ruling simply stated that parents can't micromanage schools' curricula. The court never said parents don't have a right to move their children to another school, or a private school, or to homeschool them.

    Paladino, in the meantime, issued a letter yesterday acknowledging that he made "mistakes" in his comments to the Jewish leaders. "I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the gay and lesbian community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong," he wrote.

    Too bad we'll never see Jeffrey and Farah apologizing for their own comments.

  • "[D]ead on the money": Conservative media figures defend Paladino's anti-gay remarks

    ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    New York GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino recently said he didn't want children "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option" as "getting married and raising a family." Right-wing pundits have since defended his remarks, calling his comments "dead on the money," "defensible," and "[not] bad at all."

  • Wash. Times op-ed ignores Supreme Court ruling to call EPA regulating carbon a "power grab"

    ››› ››› CHELSEA RUDMAN

    A Washington Times op-ed claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "designation of 'greenhouse gases' pollutants subject to EPA regulation" is "a naked power grab" because the term "does not appear anywhere in the Clean Air Act." But the Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change are air pollutants subject to EPA authority under the Act.