According to TVNewser, Beck advertisers Proctor and Gamble, Lawyers.com and Progressive Insurance have all pulled their ads from Beck's 5PM ET show. This comes in the wake of groups like ColorOfChange.org's efforts to get companies to distance themselves from Beck.
Now, if you haven't seen his latest, you need to know he still hasn't learned his lesson and is still spewing his hatred. Today, he had someone sitting with him, pretending to be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and then pretended to poison them. Yes, he was saying he would like to kill the Speaker of the House.
I just believe that is over the top and I would think that would constitute a threat and should be against the law. Maybe I am wrong. Watch this here:
This man is just about as low as it gets. Some say this is all an act, I am not sure if it is or not..but if it is..he is damn good and needs to win an Oscar for sure.
Last night Keith made the suggestion that instead of writing Fox News, or calling them, boycotting the advertisers, or writing or calling them, this time the best way to get the message across is to hit business who play it in public. Or talk to people who watch it.
Show them this clip, with O'Reilly telling lies about Dr. Tiller, who was the doctor assassinated in his church Sunday morning. The number of lies O'Reilly is telling is so numerous it is hard to list them all.
Watch this clip from Keith and then watch the clip from O'Reilly and see the difference. Then watch what Media Matters has to say about O'Reilly.
Now watch O'Reilly and see his rants and calling Dr. Tiller so many names and blaming his assassination on everyone but himself.
Among his many outrageous statements, quite possibly his most inaccurate was:
"I report honesty."
Yeah, Honesty and O'Reilly can't get in the same building let alone the same sentence.
Here is one piece where O'Reilly threatened Dr. Tiller. This was in 2006.
Again he went after him in 2007.
I could go on, but you get the picture. As Keith pointed out this was a continual thing. Dr. Tiller performed legal procedures. It is also worth noting that this was a small portion of his medical practice. He also did adoptions, C-Sections and all other types of normal deliveries.
And again, just to show the contrast. Here is Frank Schaeffer, who was a member of the so called religious right, in fact one of the founding members with his father, who is actually apologizing for his role in causing the assassination of Dr. Tiller. He is truly upset over this. Why can't O'Reilly step up like this?
To just define him and call him an abortion doctor is disingenuous at best and misleading at the least. He was considered a hero by a lot of people and performed a needed service to many couples. Yes, couples.
For O'Reilly or anyone to say this isn't an agonizing decision to have to go through this procedure during the latter stages of a pregnancy is just ignorance on their part. The thought of carrying a fetus for 7 months and then having to have it aborted due to complications beyond the control of the mother or the father, because of severe health conditions, which are very limited is just horrific.
Yet, O'Reilly and his ilk try to say that anyone who is willing to pay the money can go have this done. That is just a lie. It is not that easy to have it done and it has been proven in court that it is not done that way. So are they calling the men and women of the jury liars?
Please, think about it. This is a tough subject for anyone, but it is a personal decision and should be between the woman and her doctor. Not a television commentator or someone on the street protesting. Or some group that thinks they know what is best for me, when they don't even know me.
So, suck it Operation Rescue and all the rest of you jerks. Back off and leave me and my body alone. (Not just me but all women) I am tired of this crap. It is time we all stood up and took over this conversation. Stop being quiet, speak out, don't just sit there anymore.
One of the ways we can start taking back this conversation is to stop calling them Pro-Life. We are all Pro-Life. But we are also Pro-Choice. They are Anti-Choice. That's what we have to start calling them.... ANTI-CHOICE.
So, remember, That's your assignment, if you go somewhere and they are playing Fox News, ask them to change it, if they refuse, tell them you are leaving, tell them why you are leaving and then leave.
2nd, Stop calling these people Pro-Life.. Call it like it is.. ANTI-CHOICE!
Al Gore waited almost two years after the election before he ever spoke out about Bush and Cheney and what they were doing in trying to take the country to war in Iraq. Before that, the only thing he had ever said was one speech he gave saying we needed to stand behind them on Sept. 12, 2001.
But, Eric can say it much better than I. Here is what he says and he gives great examples from all the papers.
Cheney, in the eyes of the press, wasn't a sore loser unable to accept the Republicans' shellacking at the polls last November. Instead, he had emerged as "perhaps the leading Republican voice against President Obama," according to The New York Times. Cheney's May 21 speech at the American Enterprise Institute "crackled with intensity" and represented "a remarkably focused, blistering attack," claimed Gerald Seib in The Wall Street Journal. And The Washington Post's Dana Milbank cheered that "Dick Cheney came out swinging" and was "winning this fight" with Obama over national security
.
-snip-
But go back to the fall of 2002 and look at how media elites reacted when Al Gore made a public speech raising doubts about how and why the Bush administration was rallying the country for war with Iraq. Of course, unlike Cheney, Gore thought it was his duty as a former VP to give the new administration plenty of time and space to operate, which was why Gore waited nearly two years before airing concerns of any kind in a public forum on September 23, 2002.
And how did Beltway pundits repay Gore for showing a type of class and respect that Cheney has managed to assiduously avoid in 2009? At The Washington Post, star columnist and Beltway big shot Michael Kelly acted as though Gore's war skepticism was a crime against humanity.
The "formerly important Al Gore," Kelly sneered in print, "cannot be considered a responsible aspirant to power" because with his Iraq speech, the former VP had "placed himself beyond that pale."
-snip-
"It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts -- bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible."
Kelly was plain: Gore's performance was a disgraceful spectacle given by a hollow, empty man.
Wow, that's about as harsh as it could be. They really didn't pull any punches did they? Remember this was a former Vice President they were talking about. I have not seen anyone, anywhere, say anything like this about Dickless in the 4 months he has been talking. Oh, maybe Lawrence O'Donnell, or someone like that, but then you get a right wing hack on right beside him saying he is crazy or tearing him apart.
But, Eric isn't done yet. Let's go on.
Charles Krauthammer agreed: "It was a disgrace -- a series of cheap shots strung together without logic or coherence." Gore was an intellectually "thin" and "cynical" man whose speech was "brazen" in its wrong-headedness.
And the Post was hardly alone in piling on the invective. Jonathan Shapiro, an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California law school, mocked the former VP in a Los Angeles Daily News op-ed for his "shrill campaign speech masquerading as a foreign policy address." New York Times columnist William Safire labeled the effort a "self-contradictory pushmipullyu of a speech." Writer and war cheerleader Andrew Sullivan dubbed Gore a "pure opportunist" for voicing his misgivings about the war. (Of course, unlike Cheney, Gore the "opportunist" wasn't shopping around a memoir to publishers while he was conducting a PR campaign.) And in a disdainful editorial, the pro-war New Republic belittled Gore's speech for being a misguided rhetorical mess.
The cool kids in the press agreed: Gore had flopped.
-snip-
Of course, we all understand today that with the concerns he raised about the administration not having a fully thought-out plan to deal with a post-invasion Iraq, not bringing together a large international coalition, and diverting key resources away from the war on terror being fought in Afghanistan, Gore was pretty much right about everything back in 2002.
-snip-
And more important, the press has refused to put Cheney's ongoing anti-Obama smear campaign into any kind of historical perspective. It has also rushed to protect Cheney from those White House meanies in a way that reporters and pundits never dreamed of doing on behalf of Gore. The Village first came to Cheney's aid back in March, when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs referred to the former VP as a member of the GOP "cabal."
Not cool, the press announced. Definitely not cool.
But why had Gibbs even made the "cabal" crack in the first place? Because Cheney, in an extraordinarily loaded and incendiary allegation, claimed Obama was making America less safe. That kind of rhetoric, the press had no problem with. Instead, journalists simply reported it as breaking news. (Image if Gore had had the gall to make that claim vs. the still-green President Bush in March 2001. The Democrat would have had to enter a witness protection program to avoid the media attacks.)
Reporters then asked Gibbs for a response, and when Gibbs dismissed Cheney with the "cabal" quote, that's when the press pool rose up in anger. That's when the press morphed into the etiquette police and announced that that kind of language was beyond the pale. Clearly rattled, MSNBC's Beltway tip sheet, First Read, wondered if Gibbs' "open disdain" for Cheney was "acceptable" to Obama. ABC's The Note also reached for the smelling salts: "Wow -- we're talking about the former vice president here."
CBS' Chip Reid seemed appalled as well and demanded a clarification from Gibbs:
"Can I ask you, when you referred to the former vice president, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former vice president of the United States. Is that the attitude -- is that the sanctioned tone toward the former vice president of the United States from this White House now?" Got that? Weeks into Obama's first term, when Cheney claimed Democrats were making America less safe (and doing it for political reasons), the Beltway press bubble was mostly silent in terms of condemning it, or even raising eyebrows about it. But when Gibbs tossed out the throwaway line mocking Cheney, the press recoiled in horror.
We saw the same knee-jerk media response last week, as at least one White House reporter raised objections that the administration had taken a "swipe" at Cheney because Gibbs had jokingly noted that these days, Cheney had a lot of time on his hands.
Yet, the sitting Vice President is mocked, belittled and poked at all the time if he says a word wrong. But Dickless can say yes, I broke the law, I had people killed through torture, and it is okay, the media will defend him.
Al Gore, former VP, is now a Nobel Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy Winner and some what of a VIP in his own right, gets mocked when he spoke, and even now does not get the respect he has so rightly earned.
Here is the final bit from the post.
By the way, how did Republican officials respond to Gore's Iraq war critique in September 2002? What kind of rhetoric did they use to describe the former VP? They called him an "irrelevant" "political hack."
The press' response to that kind of GOP name-calling? Radio silence. Nobody, as far as I can tell, asked if that kind of talk was acceptable despite the fact that, wow, we're talking about the former vice president here. I suspect the (pro-war) press didn't object to Republicans' labeling Gore a "hack" in 2002 because so many Beltway scribes agreed with the assessment.
Oh, and how did television news cover the Cheney and Gore speeches? Of course, cable news provided roadblock coverage for Cheney last week, placing him right up on the same news-making pinnacle as the POTUS. But back in 2002, when Gore stepped forward as the most high-profile Democrat to raise doubts about war in Iraq, the cable outlets refused to grant Gore the same type of coverage.
And in terms of the nightly network news programs, Cheney grabbed top billing following his national security (pro-torture?) speech last week. But please note that the World News Tonight report on Gore's September 23, 2002, anti-war speech was buried mid-broadcast. The dispatch ran 43 words in its entirety:
Why? Because Gore, the has-been, was a "disgrace" when he tried to butt in about the Iraq war, according to the press corps -- the same press pack that awarded Cheney such high marks last week.
Someone finally challenged Liz Cheney, not real well, but at least it was something. She didn't just get to spout her nonsense like she usually does.
It must be in her agreement when she appears that no one will ask her hard questions, because she never has anyone on the other side to debate her really. She just gets to spew her venom and vile words and go on. She calls the President a liar, says he is putting us in danger, is going to let the detainees roam the country, because some liberal judge is just going to let them loose on bail or something.
Her nonsense just goes on and on. But here, Anderson Cooper actually asks her some hard questions, of course she really doesn't answer them, but at least he gets them out there.
After Norah O'Donnell let Liz Cheney spew for 30 minutes almost unchallenged about Torture and defending her father and the cabal he helped run for the last 8 years, Lawrence O'Donnell and Jonathon Capehart had their turn.
First Lawrence took Norah to task for not letting him in to refute her while she was on the air. Then he and Jonathon Capehart took everything she said apart.
Rep. Ron Paul, (R,TX) says Gov. Rick Perry,(R,TX,) is right when he talks about secession.
Actually, Ron Paul says thats not what Perry said. Of course, Perry is now walking it back a little too. He is trying to back away a little after getting called on it by so many of the news media.
Media Matters has a little more on this than I was even aware of when I first started this. You can see it here. It seems Gov. Perry has been flirting with a Secessionist Party and this has been going on behind the scenes.
From the article:
Governor Perry should know better. The Texas Nationalist Movement is not a random group. In a 2005 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a spokesperson for the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] described the secession movement in Texas as "very hard-line anti-government groups whose views involve anti-government conspiracy theories." Their associates have been responsible for numerous acts and attempted acts of terrorism.
Here is the audio of him and what he said.. Listen for yourself and see what you think.
This is what he is saying now, or at least what he is putting out through his spokesperson:
Noting that Perry hadn't spoken of imminent secession, I asked her what sort of scenario the governor envisioned when he spoke at the Austin Tea Party, and what the legal ramifications of such a move would be. She sought to assure me that Perry does not want Texas to secede, and directed me to this blog post.
This is interesting that this has really kind of bubbled up, to uh... I refer people back to my statement, and I gotta a charge out of it. I was kinda thinking that, maybe the same people who hadn't been reading the constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said.
Now, see what Rep. Ron Paul, (R,Tx) is saying. Because he is trying to support the secession if that's what Perry wants to do. This is just too funny.
Let's not forget this important ethnic holiday. A time of blending together of all days to share the best of us all. It is a time to celebrate the stereotype that have been created around each ethnicity. So, each of us should find a way to show our roots and celebrate who we are.
Since most of us are multi ethnic now is the time for us to throw open the flood gates and let our hearts be the guide, to allow us to show the world who we are. St. Jing Tao Wow is our Patron Saint and allows us to be free of constraints and rigid ideology and go with the flow.
So, as a German, Irish, American Indian I am going to cook up some Sauerbraten, Dublin Coddle and Pemmican for my food. My decorations will consist of pictures of Castles of Germany and Ireland, and Cave drawings and dwellings of the Indians along with some of my arrowhead collection, and a Ti Pi my grandmother carried.
So, if you are in the vicinity of my humble abode tomorrow, stop in any time and you may join me in celebrating St Jing Tao Wow Day. If you aren't close enough to stop by here, I hope you are planning your own celebration or will be able to stop by another location.
Among the others that I am certain about are, Nate @ That's Right Nate and Zen @ ZenYenta Those are the only two I know of off the top of my head right now. I am sure there are others and I will be updating and posting as I find out others. Please let me know if you hear of any.
Of course this post would not be complete without letting everyone know that we couldn't have started this if not for Lou Dobbs. He is our inspiration. If not for him and his comments which can be heard here at Media Matters.
So, please everyone, join in to celebrate this wonderful new holiday and maybe next year we can get it as a Federal Holiday and get another day off work for everyone.
Wonder why Pres. Obama has had trouble with the Recovery Bill?? With media like this helping, it is no wonder... Watch this clip if you haven't already seen it.. then look at the times that Chris Matthews tore into the bill, picking at it worse than the republicans have done.
Media Matters looks at how he talks about it and how much fun Tweety had with the it over the last couple of weeks.
Summary: Chris Matthews said that Republicans "got some of their blood thirst going here when they learned that they could score when John Boehner went after the condoms in the -- condoms in the -- in the House version" of the recovery bill, adding that "it was a lot of fun for the Republicans to say contraception shouldn't be one of the pieces of this stimulus package." But Matthews himself also repeatedly raised, criticized, and on at least one occasion misrepresented the section of the bill dealing with contraceptives on Hardball.
On at least 5 different times from January 23, until February 3, Chris has picked at the Recovery plan and made fun of it in different ways, and was worse than some of the republicans talking about it.
On February 2, Matthews said: "You know, when you buy a bag of candy, a bag of M&Ms, you know that everything in there is M&Ms. Just as an example, this stimulus package, nobody knows what's in there. It's not -- there's a little of this, a little of that, a little of this thing. We're finding out little things about Hollywood. We're finding out something about condoms."
He has allowed the republicans to just say whatever they want, he never questions them, he never challenges them. They lie, they say anything they want, quote any type of figures they feel like and cite any thing they pull out of thin air. I have heard some of the stupidest things, like tonight, Haley Barbour stated the unemployment provision (which I think is now gone) would change the laws in the state and give people unemployment whether they were looking for work or not... and he just let it stand... heck they do that now here... and I am sure they do that everywhere, but to say it was a condition of the recovery bill was just stupid and I couldn't believe it's just there with no challenge.
I am not sure what is going on, or why there is so much of this happening with Tweety. This was part of what he had to say this morning on the Joke's show..again from Media Matters:
MATTHEWS: I think he's failed as a communicator, John. And I think the -- it's such an irony for one of the great communicators since Reagan and Kennedy. If you -- if somebody came up to me and said, I want to sell you this car, and you couldn't see the wheels on the car, and you couldn't see the engine, you'd say, how does this thing work?
The trouble with the stimulus package is they keep calling it a stimulus package, but you can't see the stimulus. How does this work again? And he's never really explained how any big chunk of this thing is going to get the economy moving again. He's got to say, this part of it's going to get this thing going. This part is going to get that thing going. The tax cuts are going to get consumers buying stuff; the stores are going to be filled again. People are going to buy cars again, blah blah blah; this other part is going to have cops put on the street again, so they'll be safe shopping again, and neighborhoods will not empty out again.
I think he's got to explain why each big chunk of this will get the economy moving again, and admit honestly that some of it is just relief; it is not recovery or reconstruction. Some of it is simply paying off people with real problems, like unemployment extension and health care for the unemployed. He ought to just say, this part is relief.
As you can see, this isn't a one time happening.. it is more than once, and it is developing into a habit. I don't know if it would do any good but there is an email address from Media Matters for Hardball. We can try to send him an email and let him know we aren't very happy with him. I know I am not happy with him. So, if you want, there is the address, send away...I am ..
