The themes from this recent O'Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo are not likely to go away. Health insurance rates are on the rise. The health insurance companies are blaming Obamacare for the rise in costs. This part in particular will prove politically deadly for President Obama.
As we stated Wednesday night, American health insurance companies are building in the anticipated costs of Obamacare. For the next four years until the Obamacare program completely kicks in in 2014, all Americans are going to be hammered as the insurance companies try to make as much money as they can before the federal rules are imposed.
I don't know about you, but I never heard this part of Obamacare. I was never told that my insurance rates were going to run wild.
Were you told that? Did President Obama mention that? I don't believe he did.
If you believe Dick Morris, the President wants rates to go up so that he can institute single payer in 2014. Of course, he won't be around in 2014 because his policies are all a colossal failure and we are seeing the beginning of that abject failure in real terms with Obamacare right now.
The fact is that Obama claimed that Obamacare would bend the cost curve downward and instead rates are skyrocketing up and the insurance companies are blaming Obama. So, the economy is horrible. Unemployment is near ten percent. The border is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. Now, health insurance premiums are skyrocketing as a result of the very policies that Obama claimed would make them come down. To add to that, both Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters may have their congressional trials in September. That's an unmitigated Democratic disaster. ob
The fact that the Justice Department refuses to press charges against the Black Panthers even though there is video evidence of voter intimidation is news. If everyone covered it, FNC would not have an advantage. Instead, the network gains an advantage simply because they do their jobs.
As for Sherman, all Democrats will be in a tough spot. The behavior of the Justice Department is indefensible. So, Democrats will either distance themselves from the White House are attempt to defend the indefensible. In the case of Brad Sherman, he played dumb and that's what he looked like.
Bernie Goldberg was on O'Reilly last night talking about the media reaction to the passage of health care reform. Goldberg explained it like this. Liberals believe that health care is a moral issue. In other words, health care is a moral imperative and thus we need legislation that will expand health care coverage to all.
Meanwhile, conservatives view health care as an economic issue. We can't expand health care coverage to 30 million more people and be able to afford. Health care reform won't work because we simply can't afford it.
Then, there are those that view health care reform as all part of a plot to turn America into a European style Social Democracy. Those are the folks that Goldberg and O'Reilly said were absolutely lighting up talk radio in a near uncontrollable rage. They are the Tea Party types. Who are they? They are the libertarians. They see health care reform as a philsophical issue. They hate government and this expands government. That's why they go into a nearly uncontrollable rage at the thought of Obamacare. It is opposite of their core philosophy.
There is a small and nuanced difference between a conservative and a libertarian. For sure, they have many similiarities. Think of it this way. Conservatives hate government regulation. Yet, if you asked the typical conservative if they thought that we should have an FDA, they'd likely say yes. A libertarian would want the FDA abolished. That's what drives the uncontrollable anger. Conservatives believe that Obamacare simply doesn't make economic sense. Libertarians believe Obamacare is the antithesis of the core of their world philosophy.
Tim Tebow will make his first appearance at the Super Bowl and it will come even before he's officially a part of the NFL. Some are none too happy abouthis appearance.
College football phenom Tim Tebow is about to become one of the biggest stars of Super Bowl XLIV — and he's not even playing in the game.
Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, and his mother Pam will appear in a pro-life commercial that tells the story of his risky birth 22 years ago -- an ad that critics suggest could lead to anti-abortion violence, even though none of them have seen it.
To put this controversy into perspective, we all need to know that no one besides the execs at CBS have actually seen the commercial. In other words, some are protesting the ad and demanding that it be dropped even though they don't necessarily know the tenor of the ad.
The tenor appears to be the story of how Tim Tebow was born. His mom was in the Phillipines and her pregnancy became complicated. Doctors suggested she abort because the pregnancy was threatening her health. She refused and the rest, as they say, is history.
Now, I can't seem to find what anyone could find objectionable about that. Yet, there are women's groups that are clamouring. One of them showed up on the Factor last night. The problem for this representative of a Women's group wasn't the ad itself, which she hadn't seen, but the group sponsoring the ad, Focus on the Family. In fact, here's what Ms. Green, President of the Women's Media Center, said.
This organization is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda,
(Green was referring to Focus on the Family) That's what's really happening. The ad itself isn't the problem. Who would have a problem with the story of a mother that risks her own life to bring her child to birth. In fact, the problem is with Focus on the Family which is staunchly pro life. Their opponents fear that the Super Bowl is too large a platform for such a group. The message in this ad is one everyone should embrace. Yet, some aren't because the implication of that message is one that has significance in a very polarizing subject. That's what opponents really have a problem with. As such, they've created a controversy where there isn't one.
That was the tenor of the first two segments of the O'Reilly Factor last night. With rising deficits, unemployment, and the war in Afghanistan going poorly, O'Reilly made the thesis that we, as a nation, are in decline. He had on Lou Dobbs to concur with this opinion and then Ellis Henican to counter.
Unfortunately, the whole thing took on a partisan tone and so the point was lost. Dobbs is no fan of President Obama and so he agreed with O'Reilly's statements. He pointed to many of Obama's policies which are weakening the dollar and causing deficits we can't handle as evidence that we're declining. Meanwhile, Ellis Henican, himself a supporter of the President, sees our president as reestablishing our place in the world and so he sees Obama reestablishing us as a power.
Ultimately, whether we're a declining power is not a partisan issue. It's much bigger than President Obama. In fact, when a fellow blogger, Shanika Chapman, interviewed me, she asked me just this question and here's how I answered it.
I have no fears for the United States of America? This country has overcome so
much. It defeated the tyranny of the Monarchy of Britain. It overcame the evil of slavery and the country eventually gave women the full rights of men. In the long term, this country not only survives but it thrives.
The idea that America is in decline must be set into historical context. For instance, a $12 trillion debt is nothing compared to a country at war with itself. That's exactly what happened in 1861. The country not only survived that but thrived as a result. We spent the entire decade of the 1930's with double digit unemployment. It peaked at 25% and never fell below 13% during FDR's entire first two terms. We not only survived that but thrived through it.
Look at what awaited us in the beginning of the 1980's. We had just lost our first war not a decade earlier. We had double digit unemployment and inflation. Yet, we ended the decade with a thriving economy and having defeated the Soviet Union.
In the 1880's, the economy got so bad that we were facing a state of deflation for the first and only time in our history. In other words, goods and services were getting cheaper. We not only survived that period in our history but it ushered in the industrial revolution.
So, this country has been here before. It's faced challenges just like this before. No doubt there were plenty of pundits that claimed, much like O'Reilly now, that we were in decline then. Each and every time, we faced those challenges and thrived.
We have tough times. There's no doubt about that. There are no easy answers. There were, however, no easy answers in previous times of challenges. We made it through and I am fully confident we'll make it through again.
Bill O'Reilly had his final of three parts to his interview with Sarah Palin tonight. I was actually generally disappointed with the interview. O'Reilly said the interview would focus on "policy". There were two questions on Iran, one on Afghanistan, one on domestic policy, none on health care, and no questions on social issues.
That's not really focusing on policy but rather scratching the surface on policy. Tonight's interview was on the "hateful attacks" and whether or not Palin wants to lead the tea parties. All of this is interesting but what I want to know is what Palin would do to fix health care, about the economy, Russia, Iran, China, etc.
These cultural questions are interesting but they say very little about whether or not Palin has serious answers to serious policy questions. O'Reilly barely even mentioned China and Russia in the entire interview. All of Palin's critics say she knows little about foreign policy. O'Reilly neither confirmed nor denied that stance because he barely asked her about policy position toward Russia.
O'Reilly says that Palin wants to leave the new populist movement. Maybe, that's true, but that's ultimately of little consequence. I don't care if she wants to lead a populist movement. I want to know if she has the acumen to deal with geopolitical heavyweights like Vladimir Putin. I expected O'Reilly to ask her enough probing questions to get an idea of that. I was disappointed.
The second part of the O'Reilly/Palin interview just finished.
Palin sounded confident in all her answers. The first part of part two was spent with critical analysis of President Obama. These are questions right in Palin's wheel house. She never called Obama a "socialist" but did say that he was moving away from free market principles. She criticized his policies on closing GITMO and trying KSM in New York specifically.
I was looking forward to the policy portion which really didn't start until after the break. Much like every politician, Palin had nothing but platitudes towards Iran. She wants to work with our allies and apply stiffer sanctions. She referenced Reagan's tough diplomacy as a model.
All of this sounds nice but there's really no specific policy in there. In fact, the best idea I've heard from anyone is from O'Reilly himself and his idea of a military blockade, itself an act of war. Palin was far less specific.
On Afghanistan, Palin said she'd give General McChrystal the troops he's asked for. She made the analogy between the situation in Iraq and the current situation in Afghanistan. O'Reilly pointed out that the Karzai government is terribly corrupt and thus, it may not be worth sending troops. Palin never pointed it out but Maliki was extremely corrupt, and isn't a model of purity still, when Bush sent in the additional troops. Getting a handle on the security situation reduces the corruption.
On China owning a trillion dollars worth of our debt, Palin said that our policies of endless spending is causing us to be vulnerable to this position.
Palin handled the questions fairly well. She appeared confident and not intimidated. She was no more or less wishy washy on Iran but generally gave clear answers to O'Reilly's questions.
During her whirlwind tour, the only Sarah Palin interview I was looking forward to was the one she was going to have with Bill O'Reilly. It isn't only because O'Reilly is my favorite broadcaster, though that helps. O'Reilly's interview wasn't going to be the softball interview that most conservatives would give her, and it wasn't going to be the touchy feely interview a la Oprah. O'Reilly said his would focus on policy and that's what interested me. In that, I was disappointed.
Part one focused on everything but policy. If there is a headline it was that Palin readily admitted that she screwed up in response to Katie Couric asking her what newspapers she has read. Conservatives tried to defend Palin after that snafu, but Palin offered the best defense in the interview when she said, "who cares".
She didn't answer Couric's question well. That doesn't mean she wasn't a good Governor, mayor, or otherwise a good politician. Some gaffes go unnoticed. The best example was Barack Obama's nightmarish speech two days after the Virginia Tech shooting in which he compared that violence to all sorts of "violence" including: the violence of not being able to have an abortion, losing your job to outsourcing, and not having your voice heard. The media ignored that trainwreck. They've decided to latch onto this. So what?
Palin also broke no news in revealing some of the tension between herself and McCain's operatives. Palin wanted to do the Factor during the campaign but the operatives thought that would be a bad idea. What O'Reilly referred to as being assertive, Palin referred to as the media calling it "going rogue".
My main beef with the interview was that O'Reilly, again, calls Palin "normal". I don't know if I would call her extraordinary but definitely unconventional. She's certainly not normal. There aren't many former state champion basketball players, former sports casters, former hockey moms, that wind up being Governor. She does however have an opportunity to lead a populist movement. She's not normal and any such reference is totally off base. She can however connect and appeal to the masses, which is what I assume O'Reilly meant.
This part of the interview was certainly in Palin's wheel house. She was allowed explain some of the inside baseball of the campaign. She set the record straight on Couric and Gibson. She took the offensive against the MSM, or as she called them the lamestream media. Still, what's important is how she handles policy and those parts are still coming.
The President's defenders on health care play a very sneaky game. Accuse the president of doing anything on health care and there will be a defender reminding you that "there is no plan yet." In other words, if a conservative claims that the president's health care proposal will cover illegals, the president's defenders will proclaim that's not true and there is no plan. If there is no plan, how can you say that it will cover illegals?
In fact, this is what Bill O'Reilly has been doing in defense of the president, and he doesn't support the plan. Whenever a conservative is on his show and slamming some part of the plan, he reminds them that there is no plan. It's what he did to Ann Coulter on Friday. Coulter proclaimed that the president's plan would cover illegals, and O'Reilly reminded her that this charge is without merit since there is no plan.
Here's something I know. We are into our seventh month of this debate. After all this time, we don't know what the president's plan is. There is no debating that and that's pretty sad. After seven months, the president still can't decide whether or not it will have a public option. He still can't decide how it will be paid for. He still can't decide if there will be "advanced care planning". We don't know if there's going to be any tort reform in the plan. In fact, we still know nothing.
If the president's supporters want to counter every claim made against the bill that there is no bill, there must be a consequence to that. That consequence is that way late in the process there is no bill. After seven months, the president has still made no commitment on anything. After seven months, he continues to straddle the line on each and every issue. All the president will commit to is a set of principles. After seven months, the president still can't commit to any specific policy related to any of these principles. After seven months, we don't know if there will be government health insurance, how it will be paid for, or anything else.
That's a complete and total failure of leadership. After seven months he refuses to commit to anything but firm deadlines to pass the bill. Think about it. He won't tell anyone if the public option will or won't be in the bill, but he demands to sign the bill by Thanksgiving. Maybe before he makes timeline demands, he should make it clear what he wants. If the defense to every attack on the president's bill is that there is no bill, that's fine. Of course, my next question is what does it say about the president that there is still no bill to examine. How do you defend that?
Yesterday, I wrote a piece detailing a story written by Brian Stelter of the New York Times that purported to claim that higher ups at GE and News Corp, including CEO's Jeffrey Immelt and Rupert Murdoch, that negotiated with each other and then put pressure on their two main cable news commentators, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann, to reduce the criticism of the other's networks and each other. The piece was published this past weekend.
The article was written very matter of fact even though the charge in the article was startling. If in fact major corporations are pressuring their anchors to present the news a certain way, then that is corrupt. If those anchors capitulated to that pressure rather than going public, their integrity is in question. The whole story purported to reveal a deep corruption within the news business.
Right after the story broke, Olbermann proclaimed the story bunk and used his Worst Person in the world bit to call out Stelter, O'Reilly, and Murdoch.
Meanwhile, O'Reilly used his Wednesday Talking Points Memo to call out GE. So, I called out Stelter both here and in an email. He responded and he reiterated that everything in his story was accurate and that both anchors vocally going after each other was merely "asserting their independence" when the deal was exposed.
Now, looking at Stelter's article, I believe it was factually accurate however the "facts" were presented in such a way as to totally mislead the public. Here's all that Stelter revealed about conservations between he and Olbermann. Olbermann said this in the article.
I am party to no deal
Olbermann had apparently said plenty more to Stelter. We know this because in the clip above he says plenty about what he told Stelter. First, Olbermann said, on and off the record, that he wasn't party to the deal and that none of his bosses ever even approached him about such a deal. Furthermore, he said that this story was a misinterpretation of an on air announcement that Olbermann made that he would no longer joke about O'Reilly in the aftermath of the Tiller murder. None of these things were quoted in the article. Olbermann didn't merely say he was party to no deal, but he totally contradicted the entire story as written. Yet, that adament contradiction wasn't in the piece.
Meanwhile, conversations with O'Reilly aren't even referenced. Normally, if you reach out to someone and get no response, that's what you say in the story. Stelter doesn't even do that leading me to believe he didn't even try and speak with O'Reilly. So, what do we have? We have a story that centers on two anchors. One anchor adamently denies the story and the other one apparently isn't even asked. Yet, the author proceeds with the story accusing both of media corruption. How's that for fair?
Stelter uses several anonymous sources close to the supposed deal as his back up, and then he proclaims that in June and July attacks from each to each nearly stopped. The timeline here is important as well. Dr. George Tiller was killed on May 31st. For the next week, Olbermann and others at MSNBC actually accused O'Reilly of contributing to the murder. O'Reilly fired back and the shots went on for about a week. So, if there was a lull, it didn't start until then. Here's how Stelter characterized it.
But like any title fight, the final round could not end without an attempted knockout. On June 1, the day after the abortion provider George Tiller was killed in Kansas, Mr. Olbermann took to the air to cite Mr. O’Reilly’s numerous references to “Tiller, the baby killer” and to announce that he would retire his caricature of Mr. O’Reilly.
“The goal here is to get this blindly irresponsible man and his ilk off the air,” he said.
The next day, Mr. O’Reilly made the extraordinary claim that “federal authorities have developed information about General Electric doing business with Iran, deadly business” and published Mr. Immelt’s e-mail address and mailing address, repeating it slowly for emphasis
.
Now, this can only be read a few different ways. First, while the two sides were negotiating the end of the feud, the two anchors were taking extreme shots at the other side knowing all along that a deal was imminent. Or, it might be that they took these shots and then were told to cool it and they did. Stelter claims that following this vicious salvo back and forth that the two sides stopped throwing lobs at each other for June and July. Here's how he characterized it to me.
I examined Mr. O'Reilly's show carefully in June and July and verified that the references to GE and NBC stopped almost completely.
I asked him what his methodology was in examining the O'Reilly Factor "carefully" but Stelter ended the communication there. There are some things to keep in mind here. First, June and July are the two months that both Olbermann and O'Reilly work the least. Each take a vacation over the fourth (Olbermann even took another one) and each works almost no Fridays. As such, the time in question amounts to 27 shows. Second, without context, what does it mean that O'Reilly's references to GE and NBC almost stopped completely? During that time, Michael Jackson died, the health care debate unfolded, protest were held in Iran, and the President held two press conferences? How much time was supposed to be dedicated to GE during this time?
This supposed deal also just doesn't pass the sniff test. O'Reilly celebrated being the number one cable news show for 100 months earlier in the year. Olbermann has become the top guy at MSNBC mostly by demonizing O'Reilly. Are we really to believe that corporate bosses were going to try and tinker with two successful programs?
Furthermore, Stelter's article made it seem as though attacks from each to the other were mostly sort of childish and personal barbs. O'Reilly's stories on GE and NBC are part of themese of media bias, media corruption, and corporate corruption. For instance, Stelter says that O'Reilly made a "startling charge" that GE was doing business with Iran. Its only startling if you don't watch him regularly since he's made that charge for more than two years. So, are we to believe that O'Reilly would stop reporting on things he sees as news because the corporate bosses thought it was too vicious? Would O'Reilly really stop reporting GE's advantageous relationship in the Obama admin
If this were true, O'Reilly would be everything that he rails against. He made a huge deal about how MSNBC and CNBC reporters were told to tone it down on their criticism of Obama. Now, we're supposed to believe that when his bosses told him to tone down his criticism of NBC he just capitulated. Would he really risk his entire reputation and lifelong resume in order to please his bosses? Furthermore, Stelter quotes several anonymous sources that were close to the deal. If they were working on the deal, why would they then leak it to the media? Did these folks think that Stelter would sit on this story? What did they think would happen when word leaked? Why would you work on a deal for months and then leak word of said deal to the media so that the publicity would kill it?
Furthermore, Stelter claims that higher ups in both organizations felt that the feud was hurting both brands. The NBC and GE brand are hurt. There's no doubt about that. Yet, Fox, Fox News, and News Corps brands are thriving. Now, we're supposed to believe that a successful brand would risk its reputation by trying to muzzle its top personality.
The problem I have with this story is that it is primarily about two anchors, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. One, Olbermann, furiously denied the story and was willing to go on the record with that denial. The article totally downplayed this denial. The other anchor isn't even quoted and it appears he wasn't even contacted. So, one principle furiously denies the charges and the other isn't even contacted. How accurate can the story be? The story relies entirely on a few quotes, mysterious meetings, and unclear analysis of shows over a relatively small sample. It makes a startling charge with dubious evidence.
Since the article was published, Olbermann has railed against O'Reilly, Fox News, and Murdoch. O'Reilly has had a couple of segments focusing on GE, NBC, corruption. Stelter took this as affirmation that he was right. I challenge that, but there's an easy way to prove me wrong. If Stelter's August 1 assertion is right, then his storyis the biggest media story of the year. If it's true that corporate higher ups pressured anchors to tone down their rhetoric and those anchors capitulated, then that is media corruption of the highest order. Given that one of the two anchors, Bill O'Reilly, has made a living railing against corporate corruption, that's hypocrisy of the highest order. So, this is a story that requires follow up. If Stelter continues on this story and reveals more, he will be proven right. If this is the last we hear of this, then that also speaks for itself.
This piece ran in the New York Times last Friday. It purported to make the supposition that a feud between GE and Fox that mostly pitted cable news anchors Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann in an often included serious and harsh charges leveled by the two at each and at each other's employers. The piece made it seem as though higher ups talked to both Olbermann and O'Reilly and had them tamp it down on the other. The piece even claimed that stories by one of the other had gone down since mid June.
It was perhaps the fiercest media feud of the decade and by this year, their bosses had had enough. But it took a fellow television personality with a neutral perspective to help bring it to at least a temporary end.
Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.
In early June, the combat stopped, and MSNBC and Fox, for the most part, found other targets for their verbal missiles (Hello, CNN)
So, this story purported to suggest that a corrupt administrative structure at two giant corporations was trying to censor their two biggest stars on cable news. The undercurrent of this article was that there were forces at both corporations that could get their anchors to adjust their message if they put enough pressure on them. This story supposedly had multiple anonymous sources. The story was also total and complete nonsense. As if on cue, here is the Worst Person of the Year bit from Olbermann in his first day on the job after the story broke. (he was on vacation when it did break)
In his piece, Olbermann gave Stelter the bronze medal in his "Worst Person in the World" rundown. Because can you think of three worse things in the world than writing an article that Keith Olbermann disputes? I believe I speak for everyone when I say that I cannot. (Olbermann, by the way, reveals the shocking fact that Stelter wrote the article even though Olbermann has denied a deal to him "on and off the record." The only other way one could learn of this scandalously covered-up fact was by reading Stelter's article, in which he quoted Olbermann's denial directly.)
Meanwhile, here is O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo from last night.
Thus, this story was totally bunk. It was only featured in their Media section but the charges were startling and so the idea that it was totally wrong is shameful. The author, Brian Stetler, has plenty to explain here. His article had several supposed insiders. How could his conclusion have been so wrong? Olbermann is quoted in the article as denying this but that is referenced ina paranthesis statement.
Stetler essentially accused two major corporations of silencing their top two commentators in their criticism of the other. This was no small charge. If Olbermann and O'Reilly accepted this deal, they would have absolutely no journalistic integrity. Clearly, they didn't accept this deal. Yet, the article was written as though they had anyway. I don't know enough about Stetler, though he acted like a hack on this story. If the New York Times were run like it was 50 years ago, he'd be fired on the spot. Even now, Stetler must explain himself. Here is his email contact information. Here is my pithy email.
Mr. Steltzer, will you be issuing an update on your story about O'Reilly and Olbermann? As it is, you couldn't have been more wrong in your reporting. Don't you think you owe the public an explanation?
(H/T to good reporting by Nancy Armstrong of MS Placed Democrat) Earlier in the week there was a big brouhaha over the supposed name change of ACORN. As I reported, a somewhat sloppy story lead many in the conservative media to mistakenly report that ACORN (the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) had changed its name. That wasn't accurate. It was in fact ACORN Intl. that changed its name. ACORN Intl. is the organization now run by former ACORN CEO, Wade Rathke. Wade Rathke was removed from that position last year when it was revealed that he had covered up about a million dollars worth of embezzlement by his brother Dale Rathke. Now, while the conservative media was breathlessly speculating about what all of this means, ACORN put out this statement.
ACORN International, a five-year old organization of overseas former ACORN affiliates, did.
ACORNwithdrew from ACORN International a year ago as part of an overall restructuring process and requested that they stop using the ACORN name, which they have now done."Wade Rathke was fired as Chief Organizer in June 2008 and has had no further involvement with ACORN since then. He will not be taking on any responsibilities with ACORN."
Now, interestingly enough, Wade Rathke has a slightly different explanation for the name change.
Here are the brass tacks. Acorn International is a federation organized with a board from each of its member countries. ACORN is one non-profit corporation in the USA. In the USA we are going to do business as Community Organizations International. Why? Because it reduces confusion on one hand – why should we want to deal with these whacks and weirdo’s out there, I wonder? And, on the other hand it allows us to more easily amalgamate other organizations that are already established and have different names. So in the existing seven countries where we have members and are already chartered, they will clearly keep on keeping on with their name. In some countries (Sicily for example) where existing organizations have begun talking about affiliating to Acorn International, it is even easier to do so with the name of Community Organizations International, because then no one has to argue about autonomy. At the point we expand to new areas we will make the decision with local people from place to place.
So, if ACORN and ACORN Intl. are severed organizations, then it's news to Wade. According to Rathke himself, ACORN Intl. is a federation of organizations from all around the world INCLUDING ACORN IN THE USA. The name change is occurring simply so that here in the states there is no confusion between the two groups. In fact, officially, ACORN Intl. is still the name of his organization according to Rathke himself. Furthermore, the name of the organization continues to be ACORN Intl., according to the Secretary of State's office in Louisiana. The address of the organization is 1024 ELYSIAN FIELDS, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70117, which is the now infamous address that houses Citizen's Consulting Inc. ACORN itself, along with many other ACORN affiliates. Finally, listed as Treasurer and Secretary of ACORN Intl. is Mande Hurde. Now, there's no other listing of a Mandy Hurde anywhere else. There is, however, a listing for a Maude Hurd. She is currently the President of ACORN. (the address listed is the same in both cases) So, either two people with very similar names live at the exact same address or the same Maude Hurd who is President of ACORN is also Secretary and Treasurer of ACORN Intl.
As such, if ACORN is insisting on making sure that they have severed all ties between themselves and Wade Rathke, as their press release insists, they are doing rather terrible job of it.
There's more. Here is the Secretary of State of Louisiana's record of ACORN Funds Inc. They also just happen to list their main office at the exact same address on Elysian Fields. Who's the President of ACORN Funds Inc.? You guessed it, Wade Rathke. Now, either the folks at the Secretary of State's office in Louisiana are awfully slow in updating these records, or ACORN isn't being totally forthright in their assertion that all ties between themselves and Wade Rathke have actually been severed.
This is no small point. Wade Rathke covered up a million dollar embezzlement. The organization removed him for obvious reasons. Bertha Lewis told Bill O'Reilly emphatically that there was no more criminality on her watch. ACORN itself has stated unequivocally that they have no more ties to Rathke. Clearly, they do. This not only raises issues of honesty. More importantly, how much influence does Wade Rathke, an admitted party to a million dollar embezzlement, still have at ACORN?
It started as a rumor told by insiders to media. Insiders believed that all the revelations were making the ACORN brand so toxic that they may have to change it. Then, ACORN Intl. changed its name and they thought that was an indication that ACORN itself was about to follow suit. Of course ACORN Intl. is NOT ACORN. Yet, Washington Examiner columnist Kevin Mooney reported the story so that it sounded as though the flagship company not ACORN Intl. changed its name. While that mistake may sound as though its small, it's actually not only huge but totally unacceptable. Mooney has been on television speaking about ACORN. As such, he should have known the story better than what he exhibited.
I first heard about it on Fox and Friends. When I first heard it on F&F, it was also reported as though the flagship ACORN had changed its name. I was immediately intrigued because according to F&F, ACORN had changed their name to Community Organizers International. Wade Rathke, previous CEO of ACORN, was now the CEO of ACORN Intl. That signaled to me that he was reasserting power. See, Wade's brother Dale had embezzled about a million dollars, then Wade covered it up, and as a result both were eventually removed from from ACORN supposedly. Wade did however remain CEO of ACORN Intl. Now, it appeared as though ACORN was taking on a world view.
When I first read the story I knew something was up. In the story, Mooney says this.
ACORN executives have also changed their organization’s name, which was tarnished by investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign, and charges by current and former members of financial mismanagement and misrepresentation.
The new name will let ACORN leaders continue their operations without worrying about prior bad publicity, according to Marcel Reid of ACORN 8, a group of present and former members.
“We’ve known for many months now that the name ACORN is going to be retired,” Reid said. “The name has been so damaged to the point where the leadership knows it simply can’t go on as it has with the ACORN label out front and center, especially after all of the reporting.”
In fact, the process has already begun, she noted. Wade Rathke, who founded the organization, announced on his blog that ACORN International has officially changed its name to “Community Organizations International.”
Reid also said ACORN is in the process of dismantling Citizen’s Consulting Inc. (CCI), a New-Orleans based non-profit, which has been used to maintain centralized financial control, ACORN 8 activists claim. Tax records show that CCI is interlinked with several ACORN affiliates.
This is sloppy work plain and simple. I'm sorry to say it but the story speaks for itself. He says that executives at ACORN have changed the name. Then, he says that Wade Rathke has changed the name of ACORN Intl. to Community Organizations Intl. but never says what ACORN itself changed its name to. He made the distinction without figuring out that he didn't finish the story. I can only assume something was lost in translation. If Mooney's been following the story for any period of time he should have been able to put two and two together. That he didn't is inexcusable.
Then, it was picked up in some parts of the conservative media, though not necessarily all. Anyone who picked up this story also should be ashamed of themselves. I heard this myth reported on Hannity, Newsmax, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and now on Beck just repeated it on O'Reilly. All of these people totally misunderstood the story.
In fact, here's the press release I received from ACORN.
Here are the facts: ACORN is not changing its name."ACORN International, a five-year old organization of overseas former ACORN affiliates, did. ACORN withdrew from ACORN International a year ago as part of an overall restructuring process and requested that they stop using the ACORN name, which they have now done. "Wade Rathke was fired as Chief Organizer in June 2008 and has had no further involvement with ACORN since then. He will not be taking on any responsibilities with ACORN."
Obviously, everyone that reported it inaccurately never asked ACORN for comment before publishing the story. That's a rookie mistake and a sign of lazy journalistic mistake. So, now everyone is in a position to hand ACORN a gift. In fact, there is no story here now except the one where some in the conservative media smeared ACORN. Now, I'm in a position to have to report that. Everyone that moved this forward should pat themselves on the back because they just handed a gift to their enemies.
Clearly, ACORN did not change their name. In fact, it all appears to be totally innocent and above board. It should have been reported that way.
ACORN uses these sorts of mistakes to demonize their opponents. For instance, they don't commit voter fraud but funder fraud. Yet, that myth continues to be perpetuated among the conservative media. Then, ACORN claims their enemies smear them with false charges of voter fraud. If you're trying to seriously report on this story and you still haven't figured out that not only does ACORN commit funder fraud not voter fraud but that reporting it wrong only gives them ammunition, then frankly, you're a hack. At the very least, you've reported this story like a hack.
I'm not calling anyone who reported this a hack, but certainly, on this particular occasion, they were. The problem is that most people that follow this story report it the way they want it to be rather than the way it is. Michelle Malkin is a great example.
And now, taxpayer-subsidized ACORN affiliate Project Vote — where President Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer and learned Leftist intimidation tactics up close and personal — is going after whistleblowerAnita MonCrief and an anonymous “John Doe” defendant for posting invaluable documents that reveal the money-shuffling racket.
Obama. ACORN. Project Vote. Corrupt birds of a feather bully together.The scoop: Project Vote has filed a federal lawsuit against MonCrief for blogging about her experience and knowledge of the non-profit 501(c)(3) organization’s partisan and political activities, including coordination with the Obama campaign. Project Vote seeks compensatory damages and exemplary damages “of at least $5 million” and all costs and attorney’s fees on trumped-up charges of “trademark infringement” and publication of “trade secrets.”
Malkin is so obsessed with linking ACORN to Obama that she fails to see the real story. That's likely because the real part has nothing to do with Obama. Here's the first part that's important.
Meanwhile, ACORN’s Project Vote affiliate has filed suit against Anita MonCrief, a former employee, who has testified under oath on voter registration allegations. ACORN is currently under investigation in at least 14 states for electoral irregularities. The Project Vote suit claims that Anita MonCrief and an unidentified accomplice gained access into private e-mails from group executives and stole the group’s name without permission. It also accuses Moncrief of using a company credit card for her own purposes.
Besides reporting on a name change, the Examiner story reported that Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN, was pursuing legal action against whistle blower Anita Moncrief. That part of the story is far more important but totally ignored because that didn't fit their world view. One of the charges was a misuse of a credit card. When Dale Rathke embezzled a million dollars he used a credit card to run up personal charges and then had the company pay them as a business expense. They covered that up. Yet, now, they are prosecuting Moncrief, a whistle blower, for just about the same offense. That's how you know the story stinks. Is it really possible that they take such crimes seriously suddenly? Or it is convenient that they can smear a whistle blower with such an accusation?
Second, ACORN is making claims against ACORN 8 of copy right infringement. At the exact same time, ACORN Intl. changes its name claiming that they are separate organizations and Wade Rathke is only following through on a previous request from ACORN. Think about it, how long does it take to change a name? Yet, it just so happens to happen at the exact same time they file a similar suit against ACORN 8. That's not merely a coincidence. They are performing a CYA because had they followed through with the suit, ACORN 8 would have pointed out that they allowed ACORN Intl. to keep their name in any suit. That's how you know the suit against ACORN 8 is bunk. They only cared that ACORN Intl. kept their name despite a supposed split only when they filed suit against ACORN 8.
The story really had nothing to do with Obama, which is likely why she missed. (some of the documents she's released show that she has at least one well placed source so making such a mistake is also inexcusable)
In the end, there's no really huge story in the original story. The only story now is that some of the conservative media unwittingly and totally recklessly just handed ACORN a gift. At the same time, I am in a position of having to refute a smear against ACORN. Just imagine if it continues to be reported that ACORN changed its name when clearly it hasn't. It will only make things worse. Frankly, everyone that reported it wrong is bound to make a public correction or allow ACORN to cry smear. I expect everyone that reported it wrong to make a correction. If not, they have done more harm than good in trying to expose ACORN.
I just spoke with Kevin Mooney of the Examiner and he told me that he will be issuing a "clarification" later in the day. Here's the clarification.
I've also spoken with David Patten, the author of the Newsmax piece, and while his piece indicates that ACORN was trying to re brand, he correctly identified the talk of re branding as "speculation". Here's how it was addressed in the article.
"This may indeed be the beginning of an ACORN network-wide rebranding, but a rotten ACORN by any other name still stinks," Matthew Vadum, a staunch ACORN critic at the Capital Research Center think tank, tells Newsmax.
That's absolutely correct though it's also why I try and avoid reporting on "speculation" because that's all it is.
Last night, the O'Reilly Factor had a shootout that will become legendary.
Ms. Walsh was one of the chief critics that accused of having some responsibility for the killing of Dr. George Tiller. Most O'Reilly critics would never actually criticize him to his face so she definitely gets credit for coming in and facing the fire.
The debate started with a critical question from O'Reilly. Does Ms. Walsh believe that a fetus in the third trimester have any rights? It took her a long time to answer the question but ultimately she believes that no fetus has any rights at any time.
The reason that O'Reilly asked this question, in my opinion, is because such a position is extreme even for those that are pro choice. O'Reilly's point is that she is an ideologue in the debate over abortion and her ideology drives the way she sees the world. This was supported when Walsh proclaimed Dr. Tiller a "hero".
The second critical part of the debate was over facts. O'Reilly believes that Dr. Tiller performed many abortions that were frivilous. He once had a 24 year old girl on that described having a late term abortion performed by Dr. Tiller. Some of that interview was featured in the shootout. It is harrowing, totally dehumanized, and the girl continues to refer to the fetus as her baby. Furthermore, she said that she "killed her baby".
O'Reilly's position is also backed up by the raw numbers. Dr. Tiller performed about 60,000 late term abortions. It's simply impossible to believe that with modern technology we should believe that anywhere near all 60,000 were necessary. Finally, Dr. Paul McHugh, who served as director of Pschiatry at Johns Hopkins, studied the files of Dr. Tiller. Dr. McHugh concluded that often Dr. Tiller would perform late term abortions for frivilous reasons like not wanting to hire a babysitter, not wanting to put a baby up for adoption, and lamenting not being able to have a social life with a baby. Legal or not, doctors should NOT be killing a fetus for such reasons.
Ms. Walsh had no very good answer to these charges. She first charged that Dr. McHugh was no more of an expert than Dr. Tiller. Furthermore, she pointed to anecdotal evidence of women she had spoken to that said that Dr. Tiller had performed late term abortions because they had recently suffered inoperable cancers, the baby wouldn't survive for more than a day, and other tragic reasons. All of this may in fact be true but just because she found some anedotal evidence that Dr. Tiller performed necessary late term abortions doesn't mean that often he did it for frivilous reasons.
Furthermore, her refusal to acknowledge the evidence is further evidence of her being blinded by her ideology. (which was why O'Reilly asked her her opinion of a fetus' rights) Finally, Walsh tried to make a theoretical point that if someone demonized a gun dealer and then someone killed said gun dealer that person would also be partially responsible for that death.
I was surprised when so many people I respect told me not to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor." I'd attacked Bill O'Reilly for his jihad against Dr. George Tiller, and he asked me on to discuss my "accusations." I thought that was fair. I could explain my point of view to his face; to say no felt like being a punk. But smart andsupportive friends, family, co-workers, Twitterers and media stars all over the country reached out and suggested I skip it.
I thought about it, but not for long. I like doing TV. I'm not terrible at it. I criticized him, I should have the guts to repeat it to his face. I also need to say that when I announced I'd said yes, every one of the doubters, and more, sent me great advice and good wishes. (Thanks to Media Matters who, unbidden, just had staff start sending me clips to watch, about O'Reilly's lies. And if you're not on Twitter, well, Twitter rocked for me.) My daughter coached me; so did my litigator ex-husband, so did my friend and Salon co-conspirator Kerry Lauerman. It takes a village to debate Bill O'Reilly!
His producers also helped by doing that thing they do: "Hey, Bill really respects you for coming on the show! He wants to have a conversation! It'll be fine!" (And they promoted my appearance on the show by identifying me on the Web site as "Joan Walsh of Slate.com.")
Well, it was so not fine. I think the high or low point was when he shrieked at me, "You have blood on your hands!"
It's true that O'Reilly did say she had blood on her hands. It comes late after she accused O'Reilly of having blood on his hands. That sort of inflammatory language probably didn't advance the argument in any constructive way on either side, though it made for good television.
The debate really comes down to two things. First, do you believe that Dr. Tiller is a hero that saved women's lives and health, or do you think killed fetus' for any reason in order to become fabulously wealthy? Second, who is responsible for the murder of Dr. Tiller. For that, I think that Glenn Beck had it best when he said the only person responsible for Dr. Tiller's murder is the murderer himself.
The week-long scuffle between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and late-night comedian David Letterman has given many on the political right something they've lacked in recent months - a tasty target.
By cracking wise with references to Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" and her imaginary need to keep her daughter away from Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez, the "Late Show" host set off a significant political tempest.
Experts and observers of politics and the media see two larger expediencies present: the funnyman's need to break through the late-night giggle chamber, particularly with Conan O'Brien's new gig on "The Tonight Show," and conservatives' need to find a foil.
It's interesting how this is framed. Letterman is a target for the right only. He's a target because the right needs a "foil". In other words, what David Letterman said isn't necessarily obscene and offensive, but it's obscene and offensive to the right. Furthermore, folks on my side of the ideological isle are only upset because we are looking for a foil.
It appears that's how far we have come in the coarsening of our society. A comedian makes several obscene jokes in which he blatantly objectifies a politicians, sexualizes her teen age daughter, and even alludes to child rape and only folks of a certain political ideology are upset. Even then, they are only upset for their own cynical political reasons.
It appears that being upset simply because what Letterman did was so far over the line that any normal human being should be offended is not enough. This, like everything else, must take on a political angle.
I give Politico credit at least for even covering the controversy. As Bill O'Reilly pointed out last night on the Factor, almost the entire print media has ignored the story. So, it appears that a major celebrity figure making lewd jokes on national television about a major politician can be ignored if that politician happens to have the wrong set of political beliefs.
Of course, when the MSM has covered it, they couldn't wait to turn it into an attack on Palin. This video is a great example of that. (H/T to Hot Air)
Way back when, I pointed out that Governor Palin had been thrust into the middle of culture war. That is playing out once again in this story. She's attacked by the secular progressive Dave Letterman. She is defended by the traditionalists in the media. The secular progressive MSM meanwhile ignores the story. Worse than that, as I mentioned in my earlier piece, Palin has been thrust into the middle of this culture war and it's a role she neither asked for or was seeking.
It's simple and disturbing. She's a prominent female politician who is also unabashedly pro life. So much so is she pro life, that she decided to keep her child even after she found out he had down syndrome. This caused feminists to attack her because they've made pro choice the center piece of the feminist movement. It caused pro life folks to defend her because they were her ideological compatriots. She never asked to be thrust in the middle of this ideological war. It was thrust upon her.
The whole Letterman controversy is an extension of this. NOW has thankfully come out in support of Palin and condemned Letterman. As far as prominent feminists, that's it. Just think about that. Governor Palin was objectified, her daughters were objectified, and Letterman even suggested child rape. Yet, this isn't enough to get most feminists to mobilize and demand an apology. Had a liberal woman been treated this way you can bet they'd all be screaming. Of course, had this been a liberal woman, Letterman wouldn't have made the joke to begin with. So far has our political discourse been coarsened that gratuitous objectification is all right as long as you pick the right target. So it is with our culture wars. The problem with all of this is simple. What Letterman said is totally objectionable and way out of bounds. If it were condemned by all, our society would set a limit as far as how far we can go being lewd, mysoginistic, and inappropriate. Because this whole controversy has become political, it clouds the idea that what he said cannot be tolerated.
Several things have happened today that have put a lot of pieces of the ACORN puzzle together for me. First, I read this piece from Politico. The piece is a sort of inside baseball look at the negotiation process to try and come up with a health care reform bill. Prominently mentioned in this piece is a group known as Health Care For America Now. Here's how they are described in the piece.
A spokesman for Health Care for America Now, a major liberal advocacy organization, said Wednesday that it will not support Conrad's alternative to the public plan because it would not seem to have the bargaining clout to control costs or keep insurers honest.
Conrad said he doesn't really care what they think.
"I am unaware that HCAN has any votes on the floor on the U.S. Senate," Conrad said. "I am dealing with votes in the Finance Committee and the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am frankly not terribly interested in what these myriad groups all think. I am interested in what people who vote think."
When a reporter pointed out that the groups represent the base of the Democratic Party, Conrad questioned their end game.
What isn't mentioned in the piece is that HCAN is one of two hundred or so affiliates of ACORN. In fact, I don't know if the author even knew this. (I emailed her though I haven't had a response yet) HCAN is demanding that the so called public insurance option be included in any final health care bill. They are also planning on running grass roots media campaigns against any Democrat that opposes this option. They can do this since ACORN has a media arm. So, they are ready and willing to use all their media resources to pressure any and all Democratic politicians into backing this public option.
What is the so called public option? It would mean that a government run insurance company would go into the marketplace to compete with private health insurance providers. Essentially, it is a quasi socialist way of running health care. Opponents, like me, would further say that such an option is a back door way to single payer fully government run health care. That's because private health insurance providers can't compete with the unlimited resources of the federal government. Soon enough, they will go bankrupt competing and almost everyone will be covered by the government.
At the same time, I just finished going sort of rogue on a conference call between the Conference of Mayors and ACORN on the topic of foreclosures in our cities. (I als want to point out that was forwarded an email inviting me to the call and I foolishly identified myself as part of ACORN 8. I am not a part of the group though I have spoken off the record with some of its members on background for stories relating to ACORN)
This was a conference call that included Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, as well as Bertha Lewis CEO of ACORN. The topic was a sort of brainstorm of ways that cities can deal with rising foreclosures.
Ms. Lewis highlighted something known as the Philadelphia Mortgage Foreclosure Plan. This is a program that has been started in Philadelphia in which banks are mandated to sit down and mediate with borrowers in default to modify their loans before they are even allowed to foreclose. Ms. Lewis also lamented that Congress didn't pass the so called "cramdown bill". This would have allowed bankruptcy judges to mandate themselves loan modifications for borrowers in bankruptcy.
A loan modification is when struggling borrowers have the terms of their loans modified so that their payments are more affordable. This is a process that I spoke often about. In fact, I correctly predicted that loan modifications would lead to a populist revolt that would pit responsible borrowers against irresponsible. That's exactly what we saw with the Tea Parties which were largely fueled by the Rick Santelli rant against these very loan modifications.
Yet, Ms. Lewis not only supports when cities mandate that loan modifications be forced on banks but that bankruptcy judges be mandated to impose loan modifications in bankruptcy. Now, I won't go into a philosophical debate on loan modifications (you can click any of the links to read my views), but it is without a doubt that support for such measures is indicative of a big government quasi socialist point of view.
Furthermore, everyone from Democratic Mayor Villairagosa to Independent Mayor Bloomberg all thanked Ms. Lewis and ACORN for their efforts on the matter of confronting foreclosures in cities. Of course they did, ACORN cohosted the event.
Let's put all of this into perspective. Not but two weeks ago, Ms. Lewis is on the O'Reilly Factor defending ACORN against charges of embezzlement and a lack of transparency in hiding the books of their accounting arm, Citizen's Consulting Inc. Now, here she is being congratulated by many of the most prominent mayors of this country for her work in the community. The mayors also pointed out that ACORN was ahead of the curve in seeing the problems of exploding foreclosures. That's absolutely correct. This is among the most effective grassroots groups ever created. They know what's going on on the ground because they are on the ground in the middle of it.
This is also a sign of just how effective ACORN is at immersing itself in our political culture and effectively taking over. While they are on the one hand fighting off charges of criminality, their health care arm is being referred to as "representing the base of the Democratic Party". Meanwhile, their CEO can with fluidity move from defending the group against this same criminality on the O'Reilly Factor, to being praised by some of the most powerful mayors in the country within weeks.
The agenda of this group is pretty obvious. They don't really hide it. Whether it is health care, real estate, or jobs, the envision a quasi socialist state. At the same time, they have effectively created a grassroots effort and media campaign that allows the group to have influence over politicians of all stripes in all positions of power.
One of my favorite Saturday Night Live skits is when Ben Affleck played Keith Olbermann. In this skit, Olbermann, played by Affleck, calls for no less than four people to quit or get fired. Those people include John McCain, Richard Wolfe, as well as his landlord. His landlord wouldn't allow Olbermann to keep his cat Ms. Precious Perfect. This "injustice" Olbermann compared to Pol Pot, slavery, and other historical injustices. Olbermann is bombastic, an ideologue, and he has a terrible habit of demanding that political opponents and others he disagrees with of being dismissed from their job. That's one of the many geniuses of the skit. In the span of just over seven minutes, Olbermann's character demands that no less than four people either quit or be fired.
It should surprise no one that Olbermann, much like his brethren at MSNBC, is blaming Fox News in part for the death of Dr. George Tiller. It should also surprise no one that he is also now demanding that Bill O'Reilly be taken off the air as a result.
It appears that Keith Olbermann is determined to live up to the now famous caricature of him done by Ben Affleck. He continues not to merely disagree with his political opponents but demands that they be removed as well.
The idea that some blame Fox News for the death of Dr. Tiller is bad enough. Now, Olbermann has just reinforced his own caricature by demanding that Fox News remove O'Reilly as a result. In this particular segment, he calls for a "soft boycott" of any establishment that runs Fox News. In other words, he wants his viewers to walk out of any establishment that carries the network and let the ownership know why. He also calls on his viewers to let those that watch Fox News that they are supporting domestic terrorist enablers. He does all this in the hope that one day soon Fox News will remove O'Reilly from the air.
His righteous indignation is only matched by his hubris to perpetuate the very caricature so perfectly flashed by Ben Affleck in that Saturday Night Live skit. Olbermann has been calling for the removal of Fox News and O'Reilly specifically from the air for years. In that time, both have increased their ratings.
The whole thing would be amusing if it wasn't being used to exploit the tragedy of a murder.
As everyone knows, over the weekend controversial abortion doctor, George Tiller, was murdered at his church. No matter what side of the debate you are on, this is a despicable, cowardly and tragic event. Everyone should pray for Tiller and his family. In fact, most on both sides are doing exactly that. The apparent gun man appears to be an individual was some serious mental issues and we will soon know more about their motivations.
We can all hope that this tragic event wouldn't be used to try and score cheap political points. Unfortunately, it hasn't even been twenty four hours and already that is not the case. Now, some on the left are trying to imply that Bill O'Reilly is responsible for Tiller's death.
But there's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer."
Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.
O'Reilly has also frequently linked Tiller to his longtime obsession, child molestation and rape. Because a young teenager who received an abortion from Tiller could, by definition, have been a victim of statutory rape, O'Reilly frequently suggested that the clinic was covering up for child rapists (rather than teenage boyfriends) by refusing to release records on the abortions performed.
...
This is where O'Reilly's campaign against George Tiller becomes dangerous. While he never advocated anything violent or illegal, the Fox bully repeatedly portrayed the doctor as a murderer on the loose, allowed to do whatever he wanted by corrupt and decadent authorities. "Also, it looks like Dr. Tiller, who some call Tiller the Baby Killer, is spending a large amount of money in order to get Mr. Morrison elected. That opens up all kinds of questions," said O'Reilly on Nov. 6, 2006, in one of many suggestions that Tiller was improperly influencing the election.
Salon is not the only leftist making this claim. Longtime O'Reilly nemesis the Daily Kos is making a similar argument.
Since 2005, Bill O'Reilly has waged jihad against Dr. George Tiller, dedicating 29 segments of his show to demonizing and dehumanizing Tiller, who he invariably called "Tiller the baby killer."
First, there is delicious irony in folks like Salon and Daily Kos, who themselves frequently refer to George Bush as a mass murderer, expressing righteous indignation that O'Reilly demonized Tiller.
O'Reilly did demonize Tiller. Tiller performed thousands of abortions of fetuses that were viable. He performed thousands of late term abortions, making him one of only three doctors to perform such abortions. Tiller often also performed abortions on females under the age of 18, without reporting anything to the authorities. By law if you are under 18, you can't consent and so being pregnant is evidence of being raped.
Also, Tiller has been the target of mentally deranged individuals long before he became the target of O'Reilly. He's had attempts on his life since the 1980's. Was O'Reilly also responsible for those attempts? Yet, the folks at Salon find no problem insinuating that this individual snapped and killed Tiller because O'Reilly made him a frequent target of impassioned and direct criticism.
The whole thing is disgusting. All of this is meant to do one thing. It is meant to intimidate anyone else that seeks to criticize or be held responsible for demonization that leads to the target's life being threatened. Ultimately, these folks have used a tragedy not only to score cheap political points but as an opportunity to silence voices with which they disagree.
There are several things that can be interpreted from this interview. First, there's no way that Bertha Lewis is calling the shots for this organization. She may have the title of CEO, but Lewis isn't nearly sophisticated enough to call the shots. ACORN is a sophisticated network of loosely knit organizations that number in the hundreds. Lewis is a true believer in the cause and she's been with ACORN for a while, but there's no way she runs the show.
Two insiders tell me that shots are being called by John and Steve Kest, who both run the New York branch of ACORN. (where Lewis worked until she became CEO) In fact, ACORN has been characterized as a plantation mentality. The group targets the poor and the working class mostly in African American areas. Most of the so called "foot soldiers" fit that demographic profile. The folks that go door to door registering voters, stopping foreclosures, and helping with health care fit this profile. Yet, most of the folks calling the shots are white and often from wealth.
Wade Rathke, who was the CEO until his brother's embezzlement was discovered, came from money. His wife, Beth Butler, still runs the Southern region of ACORN. Both the Kest brothers are white from fairly affluent backgrounds. Michael Shea, who runs the powerful ACORN Housing Inc., is yet another example of this phenomenon. Now, as I say this, make no mistake that everyone with ACORN is a true believer, no matter their background. That said, Bertha Lewis is presented as the face of the group because Lewis presents the image of the type of folks that ACORN works for, but ultimately two white guys from New York are pulling her strings.
On the specifics of the interview, most lies are 80% truth. For instance, Lewis claims that our tax money goes to feed the hungry, stop foreclosures, help with health care, and other good works in the community. That's true in a sense. In fact, ACORN is among the most effective grass roots organizations in history. What she doesn't say is that often ACORN funds are used for purposes that they aren't earmarked for. That's in fact what the house on Elysian Field is for. The house that O'Reilly was talking about is the headquarters of Citizens Consulting Incorporated. Any money that ACORN, or any of its hundreds of affiliates (like ACORN Housing) receives, be it from the government or a philanthropist, first goes to CCI. If everything were on the level, the very existence of CCI wouldn't be necessary. If HHS earmarked some millions of dollars to Health Care for America Now (another affiliate), then it would go there directly. Instead, it starts at CCI. That's because it often winds up for uses that it was never intended for. Furthermore, CCI is a private company
So, is the goal of ACORN to make the U.S. a more socialist country? Of course, it is. The two ladies can use all the dressed up language they want but their activities include things like a living wage, foreclosure prevention, universal health care. They were major players in enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act and work to raise minimum wage in localities and states on a regular basis. All of their causes just happen to be quasi socialist causes. My favorite Latin phrase is res ipsa loquitor. The facts speak for themselves.
Finally, Ms. Lewis, in denying O'Reilly request to see their books, mentioned that they are already audited. Here's what she didn't say. The firm that audits CCI is Duplainer, Hrapmann, Hogan and Maher, L.L.P, and they were the firm that were auditing CCI when Dale Rathke was embezzling about a million dollars from CCI. So, her assertion that this firm is to be trusted simply doesn't square with their history.
When I initially saw the segment, I didn't think much of it, but it has set off a firestorm in a little corner of the internet known as the right blogosphere. Here's video of the segment.
At about, 1:50 of the segment, O'Reilly and Amanda Carpenter discuss a comment made on Hot Air.
unqualified, militant, and Socialist, NEXT please. The GOP needs to block any of Hussein's extremist picks.
Now, in discussing this comment, O'Reilly does several things of note. First, he misidentifies this as a blog post, which the purveyors would have written. In fact, it is a comment by a reader. Second, he alludes that Hussein is used to describe Obama. Third, his analysis of the comment is that it comes from political fantasy land. In other words, the Republicans don't have the votes to hold up any of his nominees during this cycle.
Now, I thought nothing of this however the folks at Hot Air saw this as a "smear".
Ah, there’s nothing like yanking a comment out of context and using it to smear the entire site, even though neither Ed nor I have ever referred to Obama as “Hussein.” Bonus points to O’R for referring to the comment in question as a “blog posting” even though it’s anything but. And before our lefty commenters ask, yes, I have defended Kos from similar charges.
Exit question: How guilty to hold Carpenter for not objecting more vociferously in Hot Air’s defense?
The firestorm has been set. Next came Michelle Malkin, owner of Hot Air, on Fox and Friends attacking O'Reilly for this "smear" (during a segment about something totally different no less)
Finally, O'Reilly responded last night during his reality check segmen. He corrected himself and pointed out that it was commenter and not the writers that said this. He also said that he believes that blogs should do a better job of policing such comments, and that on his own site that's often easier said than done.
NO HOMOS NO HOMOS now will the League arrest me for my right wing statement, perhaps i will be taken off the New Yuk slimes CHRISTMAS card list. what you do or dont do in your bed room is none of my business just dont tell me I am wrong if i say NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS NO MARRIAGE FOR HOMOS. Hay maybe you can have a vote and lose and have the courts overturn your vote. Well that cant happen in AMERICA now can it.
They've even combed The Fox Nation.com, owned by O'Reilly's employer Fox News, for vile comments and found several there. So, it appears the right blogosphere is in full war mode against O'Reilly.
Well, here's my take. First, if the folks at Hot Air consider this a "smear", they are awfully sensitive. Frankly, most of his commentary is mild. He mostly calls the comment dumb, not offensive. Frankly, it is. He only alludes to Hussein referring to the president to make sure all his viewers know who is being identified. He did initially mistakenly attribute this to the writers but then corrected himself. He has long been pointing out that comments in blogs get vile and he does this on both sides.
What's really hypocritical and self serving about this though is that the ire is attracted to O'Reilly himself and not Amanda Carpenter. Only those throwing the hissy fit know why, but I have a few theories. First, O'Reilly's audience is massive and so a food fight would give them exposure they wouldn't normally get. Carpenter's audience is not only smaller but includes most of the same readers.
Yet, Carpenter ought to be the target of most of these attacks. She was brought onto the segment to share with O'Reilly the view from the blogosphere. She's almost certainly the one that chose the comment. It's unlikely that O'Reilly was the one that mined Hot Air for a comment. He doesn't read blogs. It is Carpenter that is the blogger. Carpenter could have corrected O'Reilly about this being a comment but didn't. So, if they feel smeared, they should be ticked at her. Yet, she gets a free pass on all of this venom. Why? Well, for one thing, Carpenter is a fellow conservative blogger. Picking a fight with her isn't as fruitful and many of these same bloggers are personally friends with her. Of course, her audience is also significantly smaller than O'Reilly's.
Also, the venom in the comments follow posts about this whole thing among all the blogs prove O'Reilly's point, that far too many hateful comments are allowed on the blogosphere, on both sides. O'Reilly agrees that it is very difficult to police all of these comments, and that's of course the reason given by Hot Air for allowing them. Of course, being overwhelmed doesn't change the fact that they are there. Frankly, the site staffs two full time writers and it could easily staff several interns to mine the comments if they wanted to.
From my own perspective, I am sure that if I read every single comment on my own site there would be several that would qualify as hateful and I get significantly less. There is a fine line. I don't want to be a facist and dismiss anything I find objectionable. That would mean very few people would come back. So, I try to keep my rules somewhat simple. As for O'Reilly, he isn't necessarily a big fan of the internet. He often points out much of gutter scum that is found there. Comments on blogs of both sides is just one example. He has admitted, more than once, that even his own site isn't perfect in mining these comments. The point should be to try and figure out how to keep the hate out. Reflexively getting defensive and attacking the messenger doesn't solve the problem.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
