Libs: It was All ______'s Fault Regarding Poor Obama Debate Showing

Al Gore:  It was the altitude's fault.  No Kidding.  That is what he said. 


Stephanie Cutter:  It was all Jim Lehrer's Fault! 


Michael Moore:  It was all John Kerry's Fault!
Here is a tweet he sent:  This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach."


Bill Maher:  Lehrer sucked!  (from his twitter)

Others who blamed Lehrer via twitter were the View's Sherri Sheppard (upset Moochelle may not be able to have the View gals over to the White House next year for tea), ABC news Dan Abrams, Daily Beast writer Michael Tomasky, and the host who nobody watches because she is ugly, a liar, and boring--Rachel Maddow.

The fact of the matter, people, is that it is Obama's fault.  He can't live without the prompter.  We have seen that the Wizard of O is not so big and bad behind the curtain without his props.  It is liberalism's fault and the media's fault for not vetting and propping up this clown for the last four years.  Liberalism is full of lies, and when it faces real conservatism and articulation of the ideas like Romney engaged in, it always loses. 

But, as usual, the liberals have to blame someone else....As my friend Tom Blumer at bizzyblog says...BooHooOuch!

MSNBC Hack Mitchell Gets Schooled by Romney Surrogate

Remember Andrea Mitchell?













She's the one who thinks the deaths of Agents Zapata and Terry at the hands of Mexican drug cartels using guns given to them by the US government is "just politics" and no big deal...Well, her ignorance and stupidity continue to shine as she gets taken to school by a Romney surrogate who takes her to the woodshed on outsourcing. Go check out the video here and then come back....

OK, get all that? It is hilarious to watch these troglodytes who are supposedly so smart and observant get schooled. Andrea Mitchell looks like the emptyheaded bass face she is, and for the three people who watch MSNBC, the truth gets out there some more. Sununu shows Mitchell to be a brainless automaton, who has been confronted with the illogic of position, and overheats trying to defend the indefensible. Ol' Andrea got some serious egg on that bass face of hers...

NBC's Andrea Mitchell Thinks the Deaths of Agent Terry and Others are Just a Distraction

Meet Andrea Mitchell:









She makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. She is a reporter for MSNBC and NBC News, aka the Obama Network, owned by a known Obama Schill. This woman has the best life ever, and she thinks Americans are stupid. She gets paid to rattle off a teleprompter and inject her misinformed opinion to tens of Americans. She is vastly overpaid, has never done anything to help the country, and thinks that Brian Terry's family doesn't deserve justice or to know if/how the government basically gave guns that murdered their loved one. Here is what this hack/b**ch said:

"It is a distraction, it is politics writ large in Washington..."

Meet Brian Terry:







Brian was a border patrol agent. He didn't make a lot of money. He did, however, serve his country and sought to protect and defend the Constitution.

Meet Brian's family:





Why are they crying? They are at Brian's funeral. They are still crying because they want justice for Brian. Brian was killed with weapons that were part of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation that was more about making news to get more gun control laws than it was about stopping drug cartels. They cry out for justice. You know who else does?

Meet Jaime Zapata:





He was a federal agent. Served his country, unlike you, Ms. Mitchell. He was murdered by guns linked to Fast and Furious.

Meet the Zapatas:






They lost someone because the Obama Administration botched this operation. They lost someone who was killed by guns that were furnished by the country he died defending....Don't you think these families deserve to know how far up the idiocy and incompetence ran? Don't the American people, who paid for this operation? What about these people, Andrea? What about the hundreds, if not thousands of Mexicans killed with these guns? What about them? It is not a &#&&#^^#ng distraction to them, you self serving Obama loving synchophantic tin eared hack!!!! How dare you call this a distraction! How dare you tell the victims' families that they are just a distraction. Shame on you and your entire piss poor propaganda organization, you fish mouthed seabass!

While Americans Fall Further Behind, Obama Works on Short Game

Obama is focused like a laser beam.....on golf....from the twitter feed of wh correspondent Mark Knoller:

"@markknoller: Pres Obama has played golf 47 times at Joint Base Andrews, 21 at Ft Belvoir, once at Army-Navy, 17 on Martha's Vineyard & 13 in Hawaii."

"@markknoller: Pres Obama spent just under 5 hrs on the golf course at the Beverly Country Club paying 18 holes in warmy, sunny weather."

"@markknoller: It's just a game of golf. Why are critics so angry and supporters so defensive? Encountered same on GWBush visits to ranch."

All of those were from yesterday. First, to Mr. Knoller: It is a big deal because this prez talked about shared sacrifice and skin in the game while he and his family are living high on the hog on the government dole, traipsing around the world on vacation, weekly expensive concerts.....while most Americans have seen wealth and resources reduced and cut back. It highlights that Obama is woefully out of touch and doesn't care about his fellow Americans. He is spending our money lavishly on his family and union buddies, and more Americans are tired of his and Michelle's Louis xvi like aloofness. More reason why he is a horrible leader and should be retired in November.

Brown County: News Democrat Publisher Tries to Play "Aw Shucks" Card on Conflict of Interest

Steve Triplett publishes the News Democrat in Brown County.

His son is the Vice President of the Brown County Democrat Club.

His son worked/works for EPIC FAIL Democrat Congressional Candidate David Krikorian.

To my knowledge, Steve Triplett, in his extensive coverage of the 2006, 2008, 2010 elections NEVER ONCE disclosed these facts about his son in his editorials, his endorsements of Krikorian, or in covering political events himself or through his reporters. This is a violation of the trust he has from his readers who expect openness and integrity from a newspaper. I posted about this conflict of interest and lack of journalistic ethics last week. In the Mr. Triplett tries to play the "aw shucks" card. In his editorial in the Sunday, June 17th edition discussing politics, he says, "all my Republican friends know I am a Democrat."

It is not your Republican friends we are talking about Mr. Triplett. It is your readers. Now, Mr. Triplett, who frequently bemoans modern society and innovation in his columns, will probably say 'EVERYBODY IN BROWN COUNTY KNOWS I'M A DEMOCRAT'. Well, that may not be true. What about new readers, or people who just moved in? What about internet readers who aren't familiar with the area? Mr. Triplett is not giving his readers online or in the paper the full truth.

I mean, go back and look at the extensive coverage Mr. Triplett gave every Krikorian appearance in 2008 and since. Could it be because his son was working for Krikorian? Or what about when, against all logic, the ND endorsed David Krikorian? Wouldn't it have helped the reader determine the value of the endorsement if Mr. Triplett had disclosed his son worked for Mr. Krikorian? What about coverage of Democrat events or political controversy? Wouldn't the reader benefit from knowing that Mr. Triplett's son was a democrat party operative and this would help them make informed decisions about the coverage of the paper?

If I were the owners of the paper, I would demand that Mr. Triplett engage in full disclosure, as well as recuse himself from covering politics. It just isn't fair.

If I were the readers of the News Democrat, I would take every political story with a HUGE grain of salt. Who knows how Mr. Triplett's relationships are coloring his coverage, especially when I have heard of reporters telling Republicans being smeared in the ND that, 'well, I know this is old stuff and not news, but my boss (Triplett) is making me cover and write about it'?

Sad and weak, Mr. Triplett. Playing the "aw shucks, everybody knows already" card is dishonest, insulting, and lacks integrity.

Obama's Spending: Rex Nutting Of MarketWatch Thinks You Are As Ignorant As He Is

Rex Nutting is an ignorant fool who is using data already shown to be false in trying to say that Obama hasn't spent that much. From the Drivelarticle:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

He even has a chart. Basically, his argument is that since the stimulus and omnibus bill are on the 2009 budget and the 09 budget was approved in 08, therefore, it is all Bush's spending. What this putz isn't telling you is that Congress uses baseline spending....from James Pethokoukis.:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

So, I would add to the argument this way: If Bush is responsible for stimulus and omnibus and as well as the GM bailout, then Barack Obama is responsible for nothing. He isn't responsible for, as he and Biden are going around the country trumpeting: 1. saving GM 2.stopping the recession in late 2009 3. saving jobs

So, therefore, if this is true, then Obama REALLY has nothing to campaign on. However, it is not true, just as the notions of 1-3 are not true either.

The stimulus, omnibus, and auto bailouts were authorized after the 2009 budget was ratified, estabilishing a new baseline, as James P. talks about above. This new baseline, every year then, is the new normal. So, spending is elevated every year as a result of this procedure. Let me share with you James P's chart that makes more sense than the ramblings of Nutting:


Basically, they are saying it is Bush's fault even though he had nothing to do with the spending, but he was either a lame duck or out of office when it was authorized. Nutting is banking on the American public being as ignorant about how Congress and the budget works as he is. He even got nailed on a radio program by a caller.

Bottom line:
In fiscal year 2009, Barack Obama spent a total of $1.065 trillion that Nutting at MarketWatch and Pelosi produced charts saying that Bush spent. Bush didn't spend it. Bush didn't spend the stimulus bill. He didn't authorize it, ask for it. It was not even in his mind, but because it happened in 2009, it was lopped on to the 2009 budget that Bush did not sign, as it turns out. So they assign this to Bush-era spending. They're saying that Obama spending cannot be calculated until October of 2009, when the new fiscal year starts. No spending before that could possibly be Obama's, that's what they're saying, and of course they're not right about it.

Here are the totals: $825 billion on his first stimulus; $200 billion on a second round of TARP spending. More on that just a second. Forty billion spent on a new child health care bill, S-CHIP. Now, there's other incremental, incidental spending that Obama was doing left and right, throwing money all over the place. Solyndra was getting money, if you recall, all this green energy were getting so-called low-interest loans. Obama was printing money, borrowing it, throwing it around as fast as he could. But those are the big-ticket items: $825 billion for Porkulus; $200 billion additional TARP spending; $40 billion S-CHIP. Grand total, $1.065 trillion that Obama spent that these people are counting as Bush money.

Now, the really deceitful thing that Mr. Nutting and the others are doing is saying that they are counting Obama's stimulus in their tally of his spending. In the text of the story they say they're counting the stimulus. And, they are. They are counting Porkulus 2, $140 billion, which happened after October in 2009. They're not counting the $825 billion big-ticket Porkulus. So in the text of the story, they claim they're counting the stimulus, and it's really deceitful, because what they're counting is Porkulus 2, which is $140 billion. So casual readers of the Nutting story -- it's a Web story at MarketWatch -- casual readers think, "Oh, wow, even with Obama's stimulus he still spent less than Reagan and Bush?" But again, they're only counting that $140 billion second stimulus. They're not counting the first $825 billion stimulus.

Now, more on this TARP business. What actually happened there was, Obama as president-elect before the inauguration, Obama told Bush, or asked, to release the rest of the discretionary TARP money so that Obama could use it for economic recovery as soon as he took office. And Bush did. Bush expanded the discretionary amount of TARP, and that was around $200 billion or 300 billion. So you can add $200 billion to this, and you're just under $1.1 trillion of Obama spending that's not counted as Obama spending. Now, specifically that second round of TARP that Obama asked for as president-elect, not inaugurated yet, was for the auto bailout to buy General Motors and Chrysler and give them to the unions. And that was $200 billion.

So once again, they are playing fast and loose with the numbers.

I am not the only one and neither is James Pethokoukis who are showing how much Dems and the media are being dishonest by flouting this tripe.

There is a reason that the Democrats have not offered a budget in three years. And this is an excellent time, with this bogus report from Rex Nutting and the media picking this up, to point this out. The Democrats have refused to offer a new budget ever since 2009, because they want to lock all of Obama's spending into the budget and into the baseline. Continuing resolutions keep current funding levels at the same level. Thus, Obama's spending becomes the new norm, raising spending even more.

Why would the media cover this obviously bogus story? They want Obama reelected. Why do you think there hasn't been a whisper of the biggest religious lawsuit in history, where Notre Dame University and several archdioceses and other Catholic and Protestant groups have sued Obama over religious freedom?

Rex Nutting and his ilk are not just ignorant. They are biased liars. I was able to cobble this together in about 20 minutes. I was able to find plenty of refutation in about 10. They just go with what helps Obama. But, if you look at it, if this is all Bush's spending, then Obama genuinely has nothing at all to run on. Of course, we know he has nothing to run on anyway, except used unicorn farts.

Dear Conservative Presidential Candidates and Voters: Don't Believe the Polls...See Reagan, Ronald

Folks, many of us in the conservative movement may be feeling a bit low right now. Many of us may have seen the latest Rasmussen Reports sahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifying that a conservative stalwart like Sarah Palin loses to Obama 50 to 33, or that or that Perry loses to Obama by a point or two, or that Bachmann faces a similar result as Palin. Don't believe the polls right now. The media is trumpeting them to discourage you. They are trying to tear you down. Look, the field of GOP candidates is in the double digits. There haven't been any head to head debates. The media is trying, as they have in the past, to sow the seeds of doubt so we end up with a Gerald Ford or John McCain again. Don't believe it. Look to history. Time Magazine, March, 11, 1980:

For several decades, it has been an article of faith among politicians and political analysts that no candidate can win a U.S. presidential election unless he can dominate the broad center of the spectrum, that all candidates on the edges of the left or right are doomed. Barry Goldwater's "extremism . . . is no vice" campaign of 1964 provides the classic evidence, reinforced by George McGovern's 1972 defeat in 49 out of 50 states. And since G.O.P. Front Runner Ronald Reagan relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if he wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign. Ex-President Gerald Ford left no doubt about his views when he warned last month: "A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election."

But last week, after Ford gave up his own ambitions and Reagan's nomination took on a look of inevitability, a reassessment was under way across the country. The consensus was that although many hazards lie ahead, Ronald Reagan indeed has a chance to be elected as the 40th President of the U.S.

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle.

See that, folks? This is just 8 months before election day, not over a year. And Reagan was down 25 points to Carter. There had been no debates yet. There had been no flurry of campaign ads. Continuing with the Time Article:

As recently as last month, before Reagan's New Hampshire victory, White House advisers looked forward with relish to the possibility of Reagan as their target. No longer. Says one Georgian: "People like what Reagan's saying about the economy, about foreign policy. He's offering simple solutions and that's what people want." Adds another White House aide: "To dismiss Ronald Reagan as a right-wing nut would be a very serious error—for us or anybody else."

California Pollster Mervin Field, who just last fall felt that Reagan's nomination would lead to a Republican disaster, has changed his mind. Says Field: "I just don't see how you could dispassionately and factually argue that it will be a Carter victory. It's going to be a very close race."

Unlike the situation in 1964, when Democratic Incumbent Lyndon Johnson was still very popular, Reagan confronts a Democratic President who, after a temporary surge in the national polls because of the crises in Iran and Afghanistan, is now plagued by declining job ratings. The odds are that by fall, Carter will be trying to defend his management of an economy with double-digit inflation and rising unemployment, gasoline prices of upwards of $2 per gal. and a reduced budget that offends many of the traditional Democratic-constituencies.

Sound familiar? Doesn't that sound like where we are now? Therefore, don't lose heart. Don't believe the Karl Rove/Bill Kristol/Dick Morris nonsense. A real conservative can win. People want simple answers because there really are some simple, but perhaps difficult to stomach for some, solutions. Don't believe that we have to pick a squish like Huntsman or a chameleon like Romney to win. We have seen that before and failed. Don't lose heart.

Conservative candidates, you need to be able to articulate the message that this is just not an economic crisis, but a crisis of the American spirit. That the American spirit itself, the spirit of entrepeneurship, innovation, and pride is being hampered by an out of control government. You need to be able to articulate that America is and can maintain being the best nation in the world. Articulate the problem, but present positive solutions. For, we know, despite the efforts of Time and others, that it IS POSSIBLE. Reagan did win. And people will go for truth over a shell game every time. Check out this last excerpt from the TIME piece:

Yankelovich believes that the American electorate has already shown a predisposition to replace Carter. This was manifested in the early eagerness for a Kennedy candidacy, which proved so disappointing when it became a reality. The brief bubbling of support for a Ford candidacy was part of the same feeling. If popular unhappiness with domestic and world problems finally comes to rest at Carter's doorstep, voters may begin to see all sorts of previously invisible virtues in Ronald Reagan.

Not only does Reagan face a weakened President, he also presents a less frightening prospect than the apparently more reckless Goldwater. Says TIME Washington Bureau Chief Robert Ajemian: "To many people, Reagan is reassuring, almost parental. He is too fatalistic and too modest to be a crusader."

So far in this campaign, Reagan has done little to damage that image. Says Florida National Committeewoman Paula Hawkins, a John Connally supporter: "He has been dignified, professional under stress. He responds well when he gets punched. He's gentlemanly, answers with humor and with enough acid to let you know he has heard."

There is evidence that voters other than Republican archconservatives are beginning to support Reagan. In last week's Illinois primary, according to one poll, 40% of the Republican vote was cast by Democratic and Independent crossovers, and roughly 30% of these went to Reagan.

Just as the Republican Party is closer to Reagan's point of view than it was eight or even four years ago, the country as a whole has moved right. Reagan's reach for the center will be shorter now than before. Says Pollster Yankelovich: "Reagan should not assume this is a mandate to define a right-wing program for the country. Rather it is a chance to define a new policy for the center."

But to say that Reagan can be elected is by no means to say that he will be. On the contrary, he looks very much the underdog. Some party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: "There's a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party's response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years. We're at the same stage the Whigs were. There's no choice."

Don't believe those like Rove, who had no relationship to Reagan during the revolution, or the others who now hold up Reagan but then snubbed him. They were wrong and he was right. Read the whole article and use it as inspiration. We don't have to settle, folks. As Mr. Reagan himself said, we have it in our power to begin the world over again, a line from Paine's Common Sense that applied to Paine, to Reagan, and to us now.

So, Bachmann, you have a shot. Perry, so do you. Palin, as much as they want to destroy you, you too can still win. Find that determined but positive message and stay true to those principles. It can be done. It has been done. It needs to be done again. We cannot survive another Obama term.

Debt Crisis: Will the Contessa Ask Obama This Question?

The gall of the media. Contessa Brewer showed she must have earned an F in research or actual journalism when she decided to try to embarrass a Republican Congressman. From RCP:

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that without the bailout, the country would be in "a depression." Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask him if he had a degree in economics.

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors," Rep. Brooks responded.

According to his Congressional page: "Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School."

However, she did earn an A in Gettin' Egg on Yer Face:

On Boehner, the Tea Party, and the Debt Ceiling

It is good to see that my friend Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog.com is finally getting around to seeing that House Speaker, my congressman and a Great American -- John Boehner -- is deserving of some credit for sticking to principles that he has held his entire time in Congress...but that's not why you came here.

One of the things that really irks me about the Tea Party is that they never admit that they are wrong about people who serve us in government when they do stick to the principles that the Tea Party support. Boehner has been a long-time advocate of smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending. We can quibble about his record and a vote here or there, but on the whole, Boehner has been with us far more than he has been against us. But to listen to our friends in the Tea Party movement, Boehner is as much the enemy as President Obama and the other socialists in the Democratic Party in Washington.

Every time an issue comes up, and it is getting to the point where it really doesn't matter what the issue is, the Tea Party "leaders" fire up their troops in to a frenzy of Boehner Hatin' and then forget to issue any statement of support for the principles by which he makes his decisions.

As much as the Tea Party's irrational outbursts disturb me, I am even more upset with intellectual giants like Joe Hallett who can't seem to understand that We the People can spend our money better than government. it is absolutely no wonder that the Tea Party folks are so ticked off at Republicans, most people still get their news and views from mental midgets like Hallett and his co-conspirators in the 527 Media.

The conclusion of the exercise in stupidity betrays the level of understanding Hallett has of what the Tea Party is all about:

The tea party has done the nation a tremendous service by insisting that it come to grips with unsustainable government spending. Its influence on the federal debt-ceiling debate has been undeniable.

Yet, tea partiers' opposition to raising tax revenue as part of any long-term deal to put the nation on a sound financial footing has stymied progress. House Republicans are so scared of the tea party's outsized influence in GOP primary elections that their leaders virtually are precluded from compromise.

"People elected this past November have been told that if you do certain things you said you weren't going to do (raise taxes), you're done," Zawistowski said. "We're going to take you out. We put you in, and we'll take you out."

Such chest-thumping is belied by Zawistowski's insistence that the tea party is not against taxes: "We want to pay taxes, but we just feel that it's gotten out of control. In our world, we understand that we have only so much money. In (politicians') world, if you don't spend it, you don't get it next year."

Federal tax collections are at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. After a 21 percent income-tax reduction, the state is collecting $2 billion less a year than it did in 2005. Eventually, "only so much money" becomes not enough to pull the country out of debt and provide services even tea partiers say they want.

This movement - political or cultural - still confuses me.

That's right, Joe, those wacky Tea Partiers aren't totally anti-tax...they just realize that we have been Taxed Enough Already.

Joe, let me try to explain this to you with an analogy you might understand. Our economy is a pie. You like pie, right? People like you, think our one little pie is all that there is. TEA Party people recognize that there are ways of increasing the amount of pie available to be consumed. President Bush, when he was a candidate for POTUS, once said, "Make the pie higher." And that is one way... You could add a layer to the pie. One could maximize the performance of the economy through greater efficiency and productivity using the same pan to bake the pie. Another idea is to make the pie bigger. This requires using a bigger pan, we'll call this expanding small business and entrepreneurship. Either way, government bureaucrats sticking their hands out demanding more and more of our hard earned dollars is actually getting in the way of the baker who just wants to make a pie.

Basically, Joe, all you have to do to understand this is shut your pie-hole and open your mind to the reality that it is only throw growing our economy that we will reach a sustainable recovery. We can't spend our way out of a recession. excessive spending is what got us here in the first place.

UPDATE: Allow me to extend my remarks and add that it is very telling that the local TEA Party groups in Boehner's district tend to support him. Overwhelmingly. I was reminded of the "national" TEA Party yahoos who claim to want to primary Boehner. Which is completely ridiculous and betraying their inexperience and arrogance. Boehner represents this district VERY well and any challenger would find it virtually impossible to defeat him. Sheriff Spotlight, a TEA Party charlatan, keeps talking trash; but you'll notice he runs away like a little girl when the rubber meets the road...just saying.

Busted! Hollywood Types Admit Liberal Bias

And it is all captured on tape! Check this out:

In clips that will hit the Internet to promote a new book, producers including "Friends" co-creator Marta Kauffman and "House" creator David Shore say Hollywood discriminates against and belittles conservatives.

Some of TV’s top executives from the past four decades may have gotten more than they bargained for when they agreed to be interviewed for a politically charged book that was released Tuesday, because video of their controversial remarks will soon be hitting the Internet.

The book makes the case that TV industry executives, writers and producers use their clout to advance a liberal political agenda. The author bases his thesis on, among other things, 39 taped interviews that he’ll roll out piecemeal during the next three weeks.

The Hollywood Reporter obtained several of the not-yet-released clips, embedded below. Each contains a snippet of an interview, usually some historical footage of the TV shows the interviewee was responsible for and, naturally, a plea to purchase the book, “Primetime Propaganda” by Ben Shapiro and published by Broad Side, an imprint of HarperCollins.

In one video, Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman says that when she cast Candace Gingrich-Jones, half-sister of Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as the minister of a lesbian wedding, “There was a bit of ‘fu** you’ in it to the right wing.”

Kauffman also acknowledges she “put together a staff of mostly liberal people,” which is another major point of Shapiro’s book: that conservatives aren’t welcome in Hollywood.

Maybe that’s because they’re “idiots” and have “medieval minds.” At least that’s what Soap and Golden Girls creator Susan Harris thinks of TV’s conservative critics.

However, the ranks of dumb right-wingers has dwindled, according to Harris, whose video has her saying: “At least, you know, we put Obama in office, and so people, I think, are getting – have gotten – a little bit smarter.”

Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in M*A*S*H or when MacGyver producer Vin Di Bona says anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.

But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created America’s Funniest Home Videos, becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: “I think it’s probably accurate, and I’m happy about it.”

Check out the link to the story for video of the scumbag liberals. Gee, these types of attitudes would be decried as fascist or bigoted or hatespeech if they were about GLBT or about ethnic groups. This type of lack of diversity would result in special set asides if the situations were reversed. Hollywood is not reflective of American values. It is high time we hold these clowns accountable. Disgusting and disturbing.

And the saddest part is these self important supposed best and brightest were suckered by their own arrogance and views of people:

Shapiro said the executives felt comfortable talking about politics with him because they assumed, incorrectly, that he is on the left.

“Most of them didn’t Google me. If they had, they would have realized where I am politically,” he said. “I played on their stereotypes. When I showed up for the interviews, I wore my Harvard Law baseball cap — my name is Ben Shapiro and I attended Harvard, so there’s a 98.7 percent chance I’m a liberal. Except I happen not to be.”

Deters is DONE!!!!!! at the Big One...

Darryl Parks did something right for once. He fired Eric Deters. Although, I would have fired him for many other things before this latest craziness. Nonetheless, I would petition the keeper of Dancing Snoopys for a few after reading this:

Eric Deters posted a homemade video of himself on Facebook saying that "if you want to conquer an African nation, send white women and pot."

WLW-AM told Deters on Tuesday that he would no longer work for the station as a weekend and substitute talk show host and removed his blog from the station's website.

"If you want to know why I won't be on the radio anymore, I don't know. LOL," Deters said in a statement. "I was not given a reason. I suppose we can all assume it was the video blog where I made a joke."

Look at that last statement. What was he expecting? Anyone remember Don Imus? What about Ed Schultz? Hey, what about George Allen? Really, Mr. Genius Super Attorney (who has been close to being disbarred once or twice, and has failed as a restauranteur and now a radio host), you really thought you could get away with this one? What, did you think throwing your camera guy and web guy under the bus would work? Come on now...But wait, he gets crazier:

"Now that I'm liberated from the bonds, I can speak more frankly … It's hypocritical that the corporate "white" media would be upset with someone like me who can walk the walk and talk the talk for making a honest observation about my young black friends. The joke may have gone too far, but give me a break."

Translation: ERIC DETERS IS A SELF-IMPORTANT MORON.

UPDATE:

Is Anything Real with Barack Obama?

Not even the supposed seminal moment of his Presidency, the killing of bin Laden, is real. The Photos of Obama's speech announcing the killing were staged. However, many media outlets have not reported that...Until now:

Reuters White House photographer Jason Reed writes:

As President Obama continued his nine-minute address in front of just one main network camera, the photographers were held outside the room by staff and asked to remain completely silent. Once Obama was off the air, we were escorted in front of that teleprompter and the President then re-enacted the walk-out and first 30 seconds of the statement for us.

The reason still cameras are not allowed during live presidential addresses is because of the noise from the camera shutters and the placement of the teleprompter, not for any sinister conspiracy-type reasons like we were hoping. And it’s been going on a long time.

The problem, according to Poynter, is that while many newspapers disclose that the photo they use is a re-enactment, some do not. And publishing these photos goes against the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics, which includes this relevant passage: “Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.”

You Stay Classy, Joy Behar...

OK, it is bad enough this wench is on once a day with the Spew, er, The View, but she also has a show on Headline News? Who Knew? Probably not most of America, given the ratings. But, Joy Behar, who seems to have some type of sick insult fetish with Sarah Palin, is at it again, calling her illiterate and comparing her to jock itch....from Newsbusters:

On Thursday’s Joy Behar Show on HLN, host Behar quipped that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has returned “like jock itch,” after playing a clip of Palin on Fox News Channel making fun of CBS anchor Katie Couric. Behar: “I give Sarah Palin credit. She’s out of favor. She’s out of the limelight. And then, suddenly, she’s back like jock itch, and just as snarky as ever.”

After commentary from her panel members for the segment, the HLN host ended up cracking that Palin is reminding people that she’s “illiterate” because the former Alaska governor also alluded to her own answer to Couric’s question about what she reads. Behar: “I think that she learned from being on Saturday Night Live that the way to reconstruct your image is to take the joke on yourself. But all she‘s doing is reminding us that she’s illiterate.”

OK, a few points:
1. Joy, how do you know what Jock itch feels like? Makes me wonder again about what restroom you use...hmmmm...

2. Joy, you know as much about literacy as you supposedly do about comedy, which explains why no one comes to your shows anymore.

3. You watch Saturday Night Live? No wonder your comedy sucks.

4. The verbiage from your mouth reminds me of the video they used to show us in health class regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the dangers of not keeping yourself clean. I'm just sayin.

5. If you want ratings, try a guest host. I hear your show is deader than Larry King's.

Rhetoricgate: So Can I Blame Dupnick and Schultz and Olbermann for This One?

Even as more and more comes out to show that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and Conservative media had zero to no influence or place in the Tucson assassin's life, we now see what happens when overzealous liberals with a political ax to grind speak out and hurl libelous accusations at a whole group of people. Liberal attacks incite people to violence. Where is the outrage over this:

A Tucson mass shooting victim was taken into custody Saturday after yelling "you're dead" at a Tea Party spokesman during the taping of an ABC-TV town hall event hosted by Christianne Amanpour.

The Pima County Sheriff's Office said J. Eric Fuller, 63, was involuntarily committed to an undisclosed medical facility, NBC News reported. The Associated Press said he was undergoing a psychiatric evaluation.

He faces charges of threats and intimidation and disorderly conduct, according to Tucson TV station KGUN.KGUN reported that Fuller took exception to comments by Republican state Rep. Terri Proud and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

Fuller was in the front row and apparently became upset when Humphries suggested that any conversations about gun control should be delayed until all the dead were buried, KGUN reported.
Fuller took a picture of Humphries and shouted, “You’re dead.”

Some media reports said Fuller kept booing and making other remarks before deputies escorted him from the church.

Liberals need to stop all this hatespeech and blame. Their level of discourse needs to be brought into line. For the sake of civility, please tone it down, libs, your comments threaten the lives of Americans. Of course, if I had to sit in a room with that idiotarian hack Armanpour, I would be a little nuts, too.

Again, this shows that there is more evidence to support liberal influence to violence than conservative, and shows the disgusting attempts to politicize a tragedy by sore losers in the liberal intelligentsia who don't care about the victims other than ratings and political traction. The fact that the Left continues this idiocy and that the college morons were cheering and whooping it up at a memorial service shows the lack of understanding and compassion by the Left.

The View on Boehner is Not Fair

The dogs at the View and Elizabeth Hasselbeck talked about incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner's emotional interview on 60 minutes and his propensity to cry when talking about his background. Barbara Walters, in this clip, joined by that idiotarian female canine Joy Behar (notice I didn't say in heat because Joy hasn't been in heat since Lincoln was splitting logs), makes fun of Boehner, saying he has "emotional problems" and is "weeper of the House." Heheheh, how droll! Not! These women are disgusting. John Boehner is emotional because unlike those disgusting, troll like, unattractive ungrateful gasbags on the View (excluding Hasselbeck) he is proud of his country and the blessings it has bestowed upon him, given his humble beginnings.

I mean, if crying is so bad, I want to see them rail on Oprah for crying so much, or on Kate Gosselin, or most of the cast of Dancing with the Stars over the years. This is a disgusting personal attack.

If any of the ungrateful, spiteful, shrivelled frigid gas bags on the View were actually appreciative or respectful of this country, they might realize their blessings and be a little emotional, too! It amazes me that any woman would lower herself to be included in this show's viewing audience. These women (Hasselbeck excepted) are nothing more than parodies of gossipping shelas who have nothing to offer save hateful spite spewing forth from the fact they are shallow and have no principled depth, or emotional core.

Blaming the Boogie Man for the Possibility of $4 Gasoline

The gist of this article by Kevin Hall of McClatchy is to blame Wall Street for a rise in gas prices.  Of course, he has ZERO support for this claim in his piece.  In fact, just the opposite.

Here is his claim:

Despite weak demand in the U.S. and Europe, oil prices climbed this week to near $90 a barrel and gasoline prices have passed $3 a gallon on the West Coast and parts of the Northeast.


Why? If demand is down and supplies are plentiful — and they are — why would prices be going up?

Because Wall Street speculators are driving up oil and gasoline prices again — just in time to dampen holiday cheer.

But is demand low?  Not according to this bit from later in his piece:

The Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said Wednesday that there is, in fact, increasing demand for oil compared with last year's low demand amid the recession.

Basically, Kevin has no idea what he is talking about...and instead of learning something about what he is writing about, he finds a convenient villain to pin it on and hope for an equally ignorant public to latch on to class warfare.

What really gets me is the dumb line about demand in US and Europe.  As if China and India have absolutely no role whatsoever in the demand for oil.  Europe is a declining, nearly dead, power in the global economy.  And the US isn't the powerhouse we once were.  Ignoring the emerging economies is just fundamentally dishonest reporting.  Again, either Hall is clueless about the subject matter or he is deliberately lying about the genuine cause for the price increase.

Wall Street Journal Favors DREAM Act Debacle

Usually solidly conservative, the Wall Street Journal has gone off the rails again. This time, it is regarding supporting the DREAM Act, a shadow amnesty bill that masquerades as education. It will cripple the economy even more with more entitlements for people who don't even respect our law:

Not only does the Wall Street Journal endorse a bill that would harm American citizens, they also mislead about the bill (WSJ assertions in Italics, refutations are not):

Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and rewarded.1. Those covered have to be “younger than 16 years of age on the date the alien initially entered the United States”, but there’s nothing in the bill requiring them to prove that they were brought here by their parents; older children do occasionally cross the border alone.

2. The DREAM Act grants “conditional permanent resident status” – lasting six years – and the minimum requirements are to have “earned a high school diploma or obtained a general education development certificate in the United States”. Not to diminish those who have GEDs, but is that what most people have in mind when they hear the phrase “school achievement”?

3. Many things would be gained from not passing the DREAM Act. If we could encourage those illegal aliens to return home they could help their own countries. The alternative the WSJ wants would continue braindraining Mexico and other sending countries. We’d also free up education slots and possibly discounts for American citizens, something that’s vitally important due to cutbacks in community college budgets that cause many Americans not to be able to obtain retraining.

We’d prefer that border reform start by expanding legal channels of entry for people who come here to work. There would be little need for a Dream Act if more U.S. work visas had been available for the parents of these children. The U.S. focus on border security has, along with the economic downturn, had some effect on reducing illegal entries. But walls, fences and employer crackdowns mainly produce thriving markets in human smuggling and document fraud and make a mockery of the rule of law, especially in some border areas.1. If all the work visas in the world were available and everything else were the same, we’d still have a large illegal alien population, and it would probably be higher due to the network effect.

2. Those making “a mockery of the rule of law” include the WSJ and all the other sources that oppose immigration enforcement.

Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans, who will have a tough time winning national elections without more Hispanic support. Polls show that Hispanic-American priorities tend to match those of other voters—the economy, jobs, education and so forth. Nevertheless, immigration has symbolic importance among Hispanics as a sign of political recognition and respect.The DREAM Act is an openly anti-American bill that would help foreign citizens who are here illegally at the same time as it hurt some American citizens who won’t be able to go to college. Most GOP leaders are certainly corrupt enough to put their political interests well ahead of the interests of the U.S. To some extent many Hispanics are willing to put their ethnic solidarity interests ahead of the interests of the U.S. as a whole; if most GOP leaders weren’t corrupt they’d realize how serious a problem that is and take pro-American steps to counter it.

There is nothing to gain by passing this DREAM act except more debt and less respect for law. The WSJ is thinking purely in terms of cheap labor and political expediency. Shame on them for this.

The Olbermann Distraction

In his "Lucid Links" post for today, Tom Blumer of BizzyBlog.com addresses the controversy by saying that he is glad he didn't waste time on it.  He then follows up with this bit: "Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters detects the distinct aroma of a planted controversy."

Which reminds me of Bill Cunningham on WLW...

Every time Willie takes a vacation he engineers some sort of "controversy" wherein he appears to have been "suspended" for about a week to ten days of his "vacation."

Same thing going on with Olby?  Maybe.  Will it gin up some interest in his show?  Maybe.  Will FOX News still crush him?  Yup.

Revisiting Money Talk

Last Friday, I wrote in Money Talk that Rob Portman could catch some of the blame if he wins while Ohio Republicans lost the Apportionment Board.  Enter National Review's Mytheos Holt on Monday with a piece about Portmans "Ohio's Future PAC" which really doesn't address exactly what I was talking about but does demonstrate that Portman is well aware that there is more at stake than just a US Senate seat.

A quick search over at Open Secrets shows plenty of donations to Republicans in and out of the great state of Ohio.  I spot checked a few of the "big" names on the expenditure report and the last donation to a statewide candidate was to Josh Mandel...in April.  That data is based on information released on September 30th, so it is possible that Ohio's Future has donated to statewide candidates this month, but...

Mr. Holt should have dug a little deeper...

I have an email in to Team Portman to see if Ohio's Future has made any donations lately.

Times are Tough for Butler County Democrats

How tough is it?

They aren't even phoning it in anymore...they have outsourced their nonsense to former Michiganders who have transplanted themselves to California.

Shame on Cox Newspapers for taking advantage of that loony liberal like that...