VIDEO- Jon Stewart to Fox: "Go f*** yourselves"

By GottaLaff

Jon Stewart does the "news"...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tea America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

...as nobody else can.

Attention ClusterFox: Is South Carolina a Muslim state?!

By GottaLaff

Earlier, Paddy posted a ClusterFox video in which there was much fretting and finger-pointing about our obviously Muslim president trying to sneak some ultra super duper secret brainwashing propaganda into the Nuclear Security Summit logo.

But oops, our pal Joeyess stumbled upon some extra special wholesome newsy goodness: the State Flag of South Carolina:



There goes the neighborhood....

Poll-itics: The truth about health care reform poll numbers

By GottaLaff

I do believe I've posted about this very thing twice today. Here are the latest numbers:

A new CNN poll finds that Americans oppose the current health care reform plan passed by Congess, 59 to 39%.

However, parsing the numbers shows that many of those against the plan actually oppose it because "it is not liberal enough." In fact, 52% of Americans either support the current legislation or think it should be more liberal, while only 43% oppose the plan saying it is "too liberal."

However, no matter what I post, or what CNN posts, or what you read, the not-at-all-biased media will continue to push the lie that America disapproves of the health care bill.

They must really thrive on drama. And drama creates ratings. But still...

Now why else would they continue their shoddy reporting? Think.. think...

Who sponsors their shows...?

VIDEO- Fox cheerleads for Tea Partiers. Weiner: "“The important story today is" health care

By GottaLaff

ClusterFox must feel so forlorn and scared and stuff now. They'll have to double their cheerleading efforts. Just imagine their impending coverage of immigration reform.

And eeks! Megyn! Think of all the French Commie gay Marxists who will be stampeding to get multiple abortions now. It'll be out of control!!!

Fox host Megyn Kelly breathlessly reported every movement and rallying cry of the protesters, declaring at one point: “Fox News alert! … Protesters are outside and, now we are getting word, inside the U.S. Capitol!”

Tea Baggers! Rah!

H/t: Pat Tibbs for above image.

MythInformation: "Deem and Pass" Is NOT "Without A Vote"

By GottaLaff

Bill Scher clarifies something about the health care reform process that the corporate media won't. It's all that pesky"self-executing rule" or "deem and pass," that we've been hearing about.

Yes, the Big Ol' Right Wing Talking Point media outlets claim that it will be passing the Senate health care vote "without a vote."

Wrong:

MSNBC's First Read succinctly explains the process, in case any other professional journalists care to do their jobs.

...the health-care bill would be voted on INDIRECTLY, tucked into what's known as "the rule." The rule essentially outlines the rules for an upcoming vote -- in this case, it would be the vote on the package of reconciliation fixes.

By passing "the rule," the House also would "deem" the Senate bill passed (with a "hereby" statement. "We hereby deem..."). The House would then vote on the package of reconciliation fixes. But the Senate health-care bill would be considered passed even if they never vote on the reconciliation fixes [and] the bill must be signed by the president before the Senate takes up the reconciliation.

So there is a vote by the full House on whether it chooses to pass the Senate health care bill.

If any members of the House do not want to deem the Senate bill passed, they can vote no on the rule which would deem it passed.

Any members of the House who vote "Yes," would do so by recorded vote, so their constituents will be able to judge their actions.

Kinda sounds like democracy.

All that is accomplished here is the consolidation of a step.

Bill has much more, but that's the gist.

We're being fed misinformation and lies by the media again. And again.

This has to stop. How can democracy survive when an unsuspecting and/or low information electorate is not being given facts and context? Instead, we're shown car chases and Tiger Woods surrogates (coughAriFleischercough) after having faulty headlines jammed down our throats.

That's not educating viewers. That's not news. That's infotainment, a few sound bites, and an outhouse full of punditiocracy.

VIDEO- Axelrod: When You Go Into The Details, People Support The Healthcare Bill

By GottaLaff

Earlier today, I made the following point:

When voters are polled about what is actually in the bill, they overwhelmingly approve. When they are polled after being bombarded by smears and lies, they raise their eyebrows a little.

They should be raising their eyebrows at the party who is misleading them, not the effort to improve their health and save their lives.

Now Crooks and Liars has a clip from David Axelrod that drives it home... to Jake Tapper, who can't seem to extricate himself from right wing talking points:

TAPPER: But according to polls, the American people do not agree with what you think--

AXELROD: The polls are split, Jake. I mean, one of the interesting things that has happened in the last four or five weeks is that if you look at -- if you average together the public polls, what you find is that the American people are split on the top line, do you support the plan? But again, when you go underneath, they support the elements of the plan. When you ask them, does the health care system need reform, three quarters of them say yes. When you ask them, do you want Congress to move forward and deal with this issue, three quarters of them say yes. So we're not going to walk away from this issue.

Ding! Right answer.

VIDEO: Why David Gregory should not be hosting Meet the Press

By GottaLaff

C & L's Heather opines as I would. Please go read her rant. I'll simply remind you of who currently hosts Meet the Press, and why NBC made such an egregiously misguided choice:

Attaboy, David. Show us how objective you are. Give us a little peekaroony at what great judgment you have. Let us in on your profound insights.

Iraq war v. health care reform.

Illegal war that murdered thousands v. a plan to save millions.

Bush v. Obama.

Gregory v. true and accurate reporting.

Puh-leeze.

Maddow VIDEO mocking Liz Cheney; "From Murrow to Blitzer"

By GottaLaff

Greg Sargent has posted a one-liner that caused me to smile and grimace simultaneously.

That must have looked really weird.

But seriously, I had previously posted a screen grab of the "Dep't. of Jihad" chyron that appeared under Wolf Blitzer as he inadvertently confirmed CNN's adherence to the Peter Principle.

Now check out Greg's mini-post:

Glenn Greenwald stacks Wolf Blitzer up against Edward R. Murrow, and finds the comparison somewhat wanting.

Please follow that link. Here's a snippet:

[M]odern political journalism -- at best the vile McCarthyite campaign was going to be presented in the standard "each-side-says" format which defines modern journalistic "objectivity" [...]

In other words, "some say" serve as legitimate sources, and punditiot panels provide "debate". Facts have very little to do with the news any more. As long as two sides duke it out, and ratings don't drop drastically, hey, we're good.

Below is Rachel Maddow's take. She made me crack up/grimace even more.

Which must have looked even weirder.

From yesterday:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

PhotOh! CNN's clusterFox

By GottaLaff

Via TPM, we get more evidence of CNN's carefully chosen chyron wording as proof of their increasing ClusterFoxitude.

"Dept. of Jihad" was referring to the GOP's attacks on Obama's Justice Department.

I wonder if, while Wolf was busy "reporting" that story, he remembered that the attorneys who are being smeared were presenting cases about habeas corpus and challenging the legality of military commissions in front of the Supreme Court, not defending clients... which they wouldn't be doing there anyway.

No, they were advocating for Constitutional rights, and hey, guess what? The Supreme Court justices agreed with them. Imagine that.

Seems the Jihadists were wearing black robes... all nine of them.

Ex Bushie to "Moderate" This Week This Week

Looks like the mouse has finally climbed into the Republican Party's pocket. Imagine the hue and cry if this were DeeDee Myers or Joe Lockhart. ADDED- Which made me think- is there a shortage of straight (meaning bias not sexual) reporters? First one that comes to mind for me from ABC would be Martha Raddatz, but there's a whole crapload over there that would be much better than Dowd.

Chief strategist of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign and current ABC News contributor and political analyst Matthew Dowd will fill the rotating moderator seat on ABC's "This Week" this Sunday, TVNewser has learned.

Dowd is the first non-anchor or correspondent to moderate the program since it began rotating hosts after George Stephanopoulos left the program for "Good Morning America." It will be Dowd's first time anchoring a program.

ABC News tells us, "Since joining ABC in 2007, Matthew Dowd has provided independent and fair analysis on issues confronting the country. He has tremendous ability to speak to and understand all sides of an issue."

Vid via Heather.

Headline of the Day

Obama puts forward last-ditch health care plan

That is the AP headline that is appearing in newspapers across the country, from Seattle to St Paul. Nothing quite like media editorializing to set the tone for reforms now is there? (Some of the local papers have changed the headline, but the one above shows up in the RSS feed.)

VIDEO: Tennessee TV News Runs Hysterical Piece Painting Muslim Community as Terrorists

By GottaLaff

Via Spencer Ackerman, we get this insanity (Tennessee Tee Vee insanity, not Spencer's):

A Tennessee TV news report portrays an entire Muslim community in the state as a possible terrorist training program, despite having absolutely no evidence that the secluded community engages in any dubious activity at all. [...]

The title of the report? “Inside Islamville: Is A Local Muslim Community Tied To TERRORISM?” A better question is whether Beres and WTVF-TV, which aired the segment, are tied to journalism.

Well said.

Ackerman goes on to call it slander. I have stronger words running through my head, but I'll behave. For now.

Here’s a clip of the segment:

H/t: Gr8RDH

WTF-O'-The-Day: Tea Bagger edition

By GottaLaff

WTF-O'-The-Day:

"A third party is continuing the liberal agenda."

--A convention Tea Bagger after CNN's Don Lemon asked if they would be starting a third party.

Did anyone else hear that? Soon after, Lemon wrapped up by saying something like:

It's good to see women speaking for the Tea Party. You're both very well spoken, thank you.

I'm sorry, but is there a shortage of Tea Tantrumettes I somehow overlooked?

1. Sarah Palin.

2. Michele Bachmann

3.

Oh, and the 2 interviewees weren't all that well spoken. They were adequate.

By the way, CNN, MSNBC (including dedicated graphics) and many media outlets on the Nets have promoted Sarah Palin's speech as if she were making an announcement to run in 2012. I wonder if she ever filled the room. Those 600 convention attendees may still be able to squeeze in if they really hurry.

Your liberal media at work.

(via)

Update, via Tweeter cjoehl:

...the hypocrisy of these loons. They hate the MSM, but they're falling all over themselves to talk to them.

Focus on the Family to air second ad during Super Bowl pre-game

By GottaLaff

My previous posts on this subject are here (scroll).

So!

One Super Bowl spot wasn't enough.

Nor was collaborating with CBS on writing the ads enough (something that CBS does with no other advertiser).

Now Focus on the Family is getting outright piggy. Their second ad-- yes, second-- will air during the pre-game show, starring the Tebows:

More details on the organizations ads:

Although Focus on the Family won’t reveal its ads’ details, CEO Jim Daly says the original ad was rejected by CBS. In it, Pam Tebow, who was advised by a doctor to have an abortion for medical reasons when pregnant with her son, said, “Both of our lives were at risk.”

“They felt that was too much,” he says. “So we dropped the line. We didn’t fight them.” The word “abortion” is never used.

The ad is “an open discussion on the sanctity of human life — not just the issue of abortion,” Daly says. It was made for less than $100,000 with “a bit of humor in it — in fitting with the Super Bowl theme.”

I bet it's a real laugh riot. Maybe they'll even do a CBS Tebow sit-com spin-off, "The Peoples' Anti-Choice Awards".

Oh, and in the interest of fairness, since CBS won't air this Planned Parenthood pro-choice response ad, TPC will:

Video- Fox & Friends' Love Letter to Scott Brown

It really is kind of yucky. Via Media Matters.

VIDEO- Super Bowl Ad Watch: Is Tim Tebow's Birth Story Even True?

By GottaLaff

This video is from MSNBC’s News Live, broadcast Feb. 1, 2010.

All my ranty posts on this subject can be found here.

Now my Twitter pal Liliana Segura sheds some new light on the veracity (or not) of the original story of the miraculous birth of "Christian extraordinaire, Tim Tebow":

Since the Tebow controversy broke, the official policy has supposedly been revised to allow advertisements from other advocacy groups as well. Yet this weekend, CBS rejected an ad from the gay dating site called ManCrunch.com, on the grounds that it "is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday." [my post, including video of the ad in question, here]

Glaring hypocrisy? Absolutely.

But back to Tebow. What if his Focus on the Family-endorsed story isn't exactly true?

In a series of new interviews, the first of which was given to RadarOnline, high-profile attorney Gloria Allred argues that Pam Tebow's heart-warming story omits a rather significant detail that renders the whole thing suspicious: Namely, the fact that abortion was illegal in the Philippines in 1987. Indeed, abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930s -- even in cases of rape or incest or if the mother's health is in danger. [...]

Speaking to MSNBC's Tamron Hall this morning, Allred called the Focus on the Family ad "misleading," arguing, "[Pam Tebow] could have gone to prison for two to 6 years if she'd had an abortion." [...]

"If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her 'choice,' then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions," she added.

Then Liliana goes on to make a very important point: We haven't even seen this ad yet, but it has already had an impact... without having had one airing.

And after it does finally air, it will get 24/7 coverage on the newsotainment shows, the punditiots will have a field day, and the anti-choicers will have saturated the Tee Vee Machine again... without having to pay one thin dime.

Please read the entire piece here.

A Super Bowl ad we can do without

By GottaLaff

This morning on MSNBC, Alex Witt and Courtney Hazlett were analyzing past Super Bowl ads and why they were unsuccessful.

One ad in particular was targeted for having racist undertones. Hazlett opined that Super Bowl ads bomb when they are politically divisive. Divisive ads just won't do, they're a big no-no. She was emphatic about that.

However.

Not a word was uttered about the Focus on the Family's anti-choice spot. The very same one that Preachy McFacebook defended. Not. One. Word.

Call me crazy, but IMHO, the Tebow ad is just a tad politically divisive.

Which brings me to Tim Rutten's take:

The Super Bowl, which is this country's most-watched television event, also has evolved into the world's premier showcase for video advertising. Until now, though, the networks always have declined to accept issue-oriented or political spots. In recent years, for example, they've turned down ads from the liberal activist group MoveOn.org and the United Church of Christ. [...]

Tim Tebow, and his mother, Pam [...] will describe how, while working as a missionary in the Philippines and seven months pregnant with Tim, she contracted dysentery and fell into a coma. When she awoke, according to her account, doctors said the drugs they'd used to treat her virtually guaranteed a life-threatening stillbirth. They advised an abortion. She declined out of religious conviction.

So she made a--Oh, what's that word again? Oh yeah-- choice.

Is there really a difference between this sort of Super Bowl ad and the other 60-odd trying to sell you beer or cars or computers? Yes. One is a pitch; the other is proselytizing. We suffer the former as the price of life in a consumer society; we abhor the latter as a coarse invasion of privacy. There are moments when we open ourselves to moral persuasion, and moments when we're entitled to simple recreation. It's the sort of distinction on which civility relies. [...]

The Tebows' story is a tribute to this country's respect for choice -- though somebody else will have to pay to get that message across.

Unless, of course, their message is rejected.

"It’s going to be really embarrassing for [Palin] to walk into a half-empty room"

By GottaLaff

In a previous post, I put up a screen shot that revealed that Barbie McCan'tFillARoom can't fill a room.

Why, here it is now!


So now it's today and today I felt like toddling over to The Mudflats. Oh my! I stumbled upon confirmation of the red highlighted text in the screen grab (click it to enlarge)!

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips likely assumed that scoring a dinner speech by the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate would guarantee a huge turnout for his National Tea Party Convention, scheduled to start Feb. 4 at Nashville’s Gaylord Opryland Hotel. But according to Tea Party insiders, the tickets for the Palin banquet aren’t selling—and some conservative activists who have already paid to attend are now demanding refunds. With the controversial event shaping up to be a potential flop, some Tea Partiers are urging Palin to cancel her speech to avoid a humiliating public relations disaster.

Palin is reportedly receiving $115,000 to speak at the affair. That’s only $10,000 less than her annual salary as governor of Alaska.

But wait! There's more!

One of the organizers of the event also confesses that most of the tickets to Palin’s speech remain unsold. “I really hope that Sarah Palin doesn’t come to this event because it’s going to be really embarrassing for her to walk into a half-empty room,” he said.

Given all the negative publicity, [Anthony] Shreeve is surprised Palin hasn’t pulled out already. “In her contract she is allowed to send a representative if she can’t make it if she’s sick or something. Maybe she’ll come down with the flu,” he says with a laugh. He adds that Tea Partiers have written her letters pleading with her not to come because they believe that reports of a glitzy, high-priced dinner would hurt the real Tea Party movement, which prides itself on its thrifty, grassroots image.

The Mudflats has more here.

CBS's Super Bowl Ad Malfunction

By GottaLaff

Last night I posted Lippy McFakeBlog's latest ghost written Facebook entry defending an anti-choice Super Bowl ad.

I then updated that she got her way, CBS caved, and they'll air the controversial ad.

Via the L.A. Times:

[M]edia analysts are predicting that as much as $500 million in corporate money could flood this year's political campaigns, unleashing a torrent of issue advertising that will force TV executives to weigh the ever-shifting debate about which commercials cross the line.

The CBS Super Bowl commercial, sponsored by the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family, features University of Florida football star Tim Tebow and his missionary mother, Pam, discussing her decision 23 years ago to continue with her pregnancy despite complications.

How many abortions do you suppose any given corporation has had? Do they use birth control? Does a corporation need parental consent?

The network nonetheless finds itself in a difficult position because, several years ago, CBS rejected ads -- some intended for the Super Bowl -- from left-leaning organizations, including MoveOn.org, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the United Church of Christ, which advocates gay rights.

See how fair and balanced the new and improved free speech is?

Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center:

When CBS rejected issue advertisements by liberal groups, George W. Bush was president and a majority of the Federal Communications Commission members were Republicans. Moreover, the network already had had a painful run-in with regulators after it was slapped with stiff fines because Janet Jackson's breast was briefly exposed during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

Critics of CBS' policy shift said the network succumbed to financial pressures.

"They are more concerned about their bottom line than fair play," Greene said.

And that's the way it is.

Poll-itics: Begging for Failure edition

By GottaLaff

Question: If Republicans do nothing but obstruct legislation, drawing the process out endlessly, will that make America more receptive to it?

Answer: No.

Question: If the media focuses nearly exclusively on the negative of any given topic, will America interpret that as a positive?

Answer: No.

Question: If the media constantly criticizes health care reform and predicts its demise, will America be more likely to approve of health care reform?

Answer: No.

Question: Is that's what has occurred?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What in the world can we do about that durned biased librul media?

Answer: Ask it to make an appearance.

-33 percent of respondents said they believed their access to care would be worse if a health care overhaul occurred, a jump from 25 percent in the poll released last month. Thirteen percent said they thought they would have better access to care in a remade system, about the same as last month.

-30.5 percent said their personal finances would be worse under a health care overhaul, compared to 24.5 percent last month. Eleven and a half percent said their personal finances would improve, compared to 14 percent last month.

-35 percent said the country's access to health care would be worse under a health care overhaul, compared to 30 percent last month. Around 38 percent said it would be better, around the same as last month.

-42 percent said the country's finances would suffer under a health care overhaul, compared with 34.6 percent last month. Thirty percent said matters would improve financially, compared to 32 percent last month.

500 people were polled with a plus/minus of 4.3. It was conducted between Nov. 28 and Dec. 20, in the run-up to the Senate's Christmas Eve passage of health care legislation

Then, there's this:

While most Americans oppose the plan, two reforms in it are supported by more than 70% of the public -- creating a new national insurance exchange and requiring health insurance companies to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions.

Also consistent throughout the health care debate has been the partisan nature of the response. The latest numbers show that 75% of Democrats favor the plan, while 89% of Republicans are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 30% support the plan, and 66% are opposed.

Here are a few facts from WhiteHouse.gov.

H/t: DAKGirl