This is kind of shocking. It turns out that at least one show on HGTV is as rigged as wrestling and Fox News.
This is kind of shocking. It turns out that at least one show on HGTV is as rigged as wrestling and Fox News.
Eugene Robinson pointed out how Romney lies a lot, even by the usual standards for politicians:
There are those who tell the truth. There are those who distort the truth. And then there’s Mitt Romney.
Every political campaign exaggerates and dissembles. This practice may not be admirable — it’s surely one reason so many Americans are disenchanted with politics — but it’s something we’ve all come to expect. Candidates claim the right to make any boast or accusation as long as there’s a kernel of veracity in there somewhere.
Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.
He went on to show that Romney both repeats the usual right wing fictions, with some embellishment of his own, and makes up totally new fictions.
Greg Sargent gave further examples of Romneys dishonesty and asked:
Many of the claims that form the foundation of Romney’s entire case for the presidency are going without any meaningful national press scrutiny to speak of. Why?
Perhaps if we really did have a liberal media. Or a news media which is willing to do real reporting.
Donald Trump is turning into a major Romney surrogate, and has been raising the discredited birther claims. One would think that this would also be damaging to Romney, but apparently he thinks he can win by bringing out the lunatic right wing fringe to vote for him.
Sunday mornings tend to be a Republican-friendly time on the TV interview shows, but it remains a scary place for those who are over their head in running for national office, such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. Bob Schieffer questioned why Romney only appears on Fox:
Once again on Sunday, he hit Ed Gillespie mid-talking point (as Robert Gibbs chuckled).
“You think we’re ever going to see [Mitt Romney] on one of these Sunday morning interview shows? I know he does Fox, but we’d love to have him some time, as would “Meet the Press” and the ABC folk, I would guess,” the CBS “Face the Nation” host asked Sunday.
Gillespie, an adviser to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, pointed out that Romney spoke “to schoolchildren last week.”
I’m sure the school children asked Romney some really tough questions.
Romney has had a hard time in other interviews beyond Fox. Imagine if clips of his past statements were brought up. Romney also has been unable to answer interview questions as to what he will do about the economy or specifically how his experience at Bain is of value. Tricky Mitt–his talk about improving the economy reminds me a lot of Richard Nixon’s secret plan to get out of Viet Nam (a secret which, to this day, nobody knows).
There have been multiple studies which, not surprisingly, show that those who watch Fox are the most misinformed. A survey from Fairleigh Dickinson University found that those who listen to NPR could answer the most questions about current events. Those who watch Fox did the worst–even worse than those who do not watch any media. Daily Show viewers also did well.
People who watch no news at all can answer more questions about international current events than people who watch cable news, a survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMindfinds.
NPR and Sunday morning political talk shows are the most informative news outlets, while exposure to partisan sources, such as Fox News and MSNBC, has a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge.
People who watch MSNBC and CNN exclusively can answer more questions about domestic events than people who watch no news at all. People who only watch Fox did much worse. NPR listeners answered more questions correctly than people in any other category…
The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly…
News organizations’ tone and allocation of resources also apparently affected respondents’ abilities to answer questions. NPR has as many domestic bureaus as foreign ones; its listeners did best on questions about international events. “Daily Show” viewers were next. On domestic questions, people who watched Sunday news shows did nearly as well as NPR listeners.
Mitt Romney is trying to do Jedi mind tricks on the country–trying to make us forget everything we remember he has said about the auto bailout. He is now even trying to take credit for Obama’s proposals which he opposed to turn around the auto industry. AP reports:
Campaigning in the backyard of America’s auto industry, Mitt Romney re-ignited the bailout debate by suggesting he deserves “a lot of credit” for the recent successes of the nation’s largest car companies.
That claims comes in spite of his stance that Detroit should have been allowed to go bankrupt.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee told a Cleveland television station on Monday that President Barack Obama followed his lead when he ushered auto companies through a managed bankruptcy soon after taking office.
“I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet,” Romney said in an interview inside a Cleveland-area auto parts maker. “So, I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back.”
Romney has repeatedly argued that Obama ultimately took his advice on the auto industry’s woes of 2008 and 2009. But he went further on Monday by saying he deserves credit for its ultimate turnaround.
The course Romney advocated differed greatly from the one that was ultimately taken. GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy on the strength of a massive bailout that Romney opposed. Neither Republican President George W. Bush nor Democratic President Barack Obama believed the automakers would have survived without that backup from taxpayers.
Romney opposed taxpayer help.
With the media so often showing a faux objectivity by quoting statements from both parties as if equally valid, regardless of the facts, it is good to see that this report from AP explicitly points out that what Romney is saying now differs substantially from what he said at the time. Catching Romney lying is quite easy to do–just wait for his lips to move. Even before this whopper, Steve Benen was up to Volume XVI of his ongoing chronicles of Romneys lies. Previous lists of Romney lies are available here: Vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII,XIII, XIV, XV. Prior to this one, David Corn considered Romney’s biggest whopper to be a lie that the government will control over half the economy under Obama. I wonder if this will replace it. The Obama campaign calls this “a new low in dishonesty” and is calling on Romney to have “the courage and integrity” to admit he was wrong.
For those who want to go through the record as to what Romney has really said about the bailout at various times, Jed Lewison gives a good play by play. Steve Benen has more. The bottom line is that Romney opposed Obama’s proposals at the time, and if we had followed Romney’s plans we would not have a recovering auto industry in Detroit today.
Republicans hate Joe Biden’s elevator pitch that Bin Laden is dead and G.M. is alive, but both parts are true, and reasons to reelect Obama.
Yesterday I pointed out how Fox was trying to twist the news with unfounded suggestions of a connection between the bombing plot broken up yesterday and the Occupy Wall Street movement. The suggestion was made with a subtle comment that “It is unknown if the bridge incident was connected to Occupy Wall Street’s plans for nationwide protests Tuesday.” Such a formula would allow Fox to tie any unrelated groups together this way. Not surprisingly, the right wing blogs and Twitter have considerable chatter today falsely claiming Occupy Wall Street was involved in the plot to blow up the bridge.
Further reports on the arrest clarify the lack of a real relationship between those arrested and Occupy Wall Street. USA Today reports:
What sets the alleged Ohio operation apart is its link to self-proclaimed anarchists — with no connections to international terrorist organizations — who believed that members of the ubiquitous Occupy protest movement had not gone far enough to express their displeasure with high-flying corporate America.
More recent plots disrupted by the FBI have focused on traditional terrorist targets — military facilities and crowded public places — with the goal of inflicting mass casualties.
The operation outlined Tuesday in federal court papers described a poorly financed operation by inexperienced players who at times joked about their lack of terror savvy but sought to use the cover of the Occupy campaign in Cleveland to strike a violent blow against U.S. corporate properties and interests.
From the earliest point in a seven-month undercover inquiry starting in October, an FBI informant said the group of suspects expressed “displeasure at the (Occupy) crowd’s unwillingness to act violently.”
Almost immediately after the charges were announced, the Occupy campaign moved to distance itself from the allegations.
Acknowledging that the suspects — Douglas Wright, 26; Brandon Baxter, 20; Anthony Hayne, 35; Connor Stevens, 20; and Joshua Stafford, 23 — were “associated with Occupy Cleveland,” the group said in a statement that the five were “in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland.”
Four of the suspects are from the Cleveland area; Wright is from Indianapolis.
Citing the arrests, Occupy Cleveland canceled a scheduled May Day rally Tuesday.
Ed Needham, a spokesman for Occupy Wall Street, said the alleged Cleveland plot “goes against the very fabric of the Occupy Movement.”
“The Occupy Movement is a social movement rooted in compassion as well as social justice,” he said.
U.S. authorities also sought to separate the criminal case against the five men from a blanket indictment of the protest movement.
“The FBI and the Department of Justice do not investigate groups or movements,” U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach said. “The defendants stand charged based not upon any words or beliefs they might espouse, but based upon their own plans and actions.”
While violence is far more often associated with right wing extremism, there are extremists on both the left and right who will resort to violence. This demonstrates a key difference between the left and right. The right is dominated far more by their more radical elements as compared to the left, with many on the right willing to ignore the problem of right wing violence. Occupy Wall Street is to the left of the Democratic Party and many liberal groups but has not shown the degree of extremism seen on the right. As noted above, the local Occupy group immediately repudiated the use of violence and did not try to defend those who promoted violence. Many liberals have also shown concern about the violence occurring at the Occupy demonstrations. Other liberal bloggers join me in having concerns about the tactics of Occupy Wall Street and want a clearer repudiation of the use of violence in demonstrations nation-wide.
In contrast, when there have been discussions of right wing violence, it has been common for many in the conservative movement to show reluctance to dissociate themselves from those who promote violence. We saw this in the reaction of conservative bloggers to a report from the Department of Homeland Security on far right extremists. We were reminded of the frequent use of violent rhetoric by the conservative movement following the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Ron Paul has pandered to neo-Nazis and white supremacists to raise money, bringing in elements to the conservative movement which would have been ostracized in past years before the move by the conservative movement to the extreme right. Will the conservative bloggers who falsely accuse Occupy Wall Street of being involved in a bomb plot speak out against the real problem of right wing violence?
The FBI has broken up a plot to blow up a bridge. Fox’s web site used this as an opportunity for a slur against Occupy Wall Street. The last line of their news story says:
It is unknown if the bridge incident was connected to Occupy Wall Street’s plans for nationwide protests Tuesday.
It is unknown only in the sense that there is no reason to connect Occupy Wall Street with an anarchist group planning a violent act. By the same logic it might be said that it is unknown if the bridge incident is related to anything planned by Fox, the Republican Party or any Tea Party group. However, Fox’s goal is to spread false narratives, such as that Barack Obama is a Muslim socialist and that Occupy Wall Street is a terrorist organization. Neither fair nor balanced. Certainly not true, but discrediting Occupy Wall Street is consistent with the conservative movement’s top priority of redistributing wealth to the ultra-wealthy.
Incidentally, while I wouldn’t try to confuse Fox with a terrorist organization, there is something both uncomplimentary and true which can be said about Rupert Murdoch today In the UK, members of Parliament are saying that Rupert Murdoch “is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company” and showed “willful blindness” to what was going on at News Corporation.
Returning to the bomb threat, MSNBC News did not mention Occupy Wall Street but the article does say:
The five were “controlled by an undercover FBI employee,” and agents had them under extensive surveillance for a long period of time.
On the one hand I have questions as to the degree to which the FBI is taking credit for, and utilizing resources for, stopping terrorist threats which might never have been meaningful without FBI involvement. On the other hand, publicity such as this might spread mistrust and paranoia among would-be terrorists, making them afraid to cooperate with others out of fear that they might be FBI undercover FBI agents.
Update: In light of the reports of violence at some of the demonstrations today, I would add that while I have sometimes been displeased with the tactics of Occupy Wall Street, there is no comparison between demonstrations (even those which do unfortunately become violent) and acts such as bombing a bridge. Occupy Cleveland canceled May Day protest plans following the news of the arrests to avoid “any implications in this nonsense.”
Video of Barack Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.
The Hill quoted jokes about Republicans and dogs:
As Romney has often critiqued the president’s affinity for the Harvard faculty lounge, Obama noted that the former Massachusetts governor and he both had Harvard degrees. “I have one and he has two,” he said. “What a snob.”
Obama also brought up a theme that has hounded him recently.
In retaliation for Democrats harping on the old story of Romney tying the family dog to the roof of the car, many conservatives have pointed out that Obama ate dog when he was a boy in Indonesia — an admission he wrote in his memoirs years ago. The president tied the dog issue into jokes about a few other popular topics.
In reference to Sarah Palin: “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious.”
About politics being a rough game: “My step father always told me it’s a boy eat dog world out there.”
On the rise of super-PACs: The president came equipped with his own mock super-PAC ad that promised “America’s dogs cannot afford four more years of Obama; that is 28 years for them.”
Check out the full video for satire of Republican attack ads and Obama’s secret agenda for his second term. He had even more material prepared, but had to leave to get the Secret Service home in time for their new curfew.
“BREAKING: Fox News Wins Pulitzer for Fiction” –Andy Borowitz
One good reason why your next fast-food meal should be at Arby’s: Conservatives are angry that Arby’s joined the boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s show.
Curious how conservatives equate a decision not to advertise on Limbaugh’s show with suppression of freedom of speech. Do they really think that free speech means that people are obligated to pay money to support Limbaugh’s broadcast of bigotry? Of course it has long been clear that the current conservative movement (which is actually an extremist authoritarian cult which has little to do with actual conservatism) has no understanding of either rights or of the free market in the real world. Conservatives strongly support the rights of business owners to do whatever they want–unless they disagree with their decisions.