Day: 5/2/2012

Fox News Hypocritically Attacks Obama’s Fundraisers While Ignoring Romney’s

Posted by on May 2, 2012 at 3:00 pm. 5 Comments :

On Monday fox News published a report that purported to unveil “a veritable army” of fundraisers working on behalf of President Obama’s reelection. The focus of the article was a practice known as bundling where supporters solicit their family, friends, and colleagues, to make a contribution to a candidate’s campaign. Bundlers can accumulate large amounts of total donations but each of the contributors is bound by the standard contribution limit of $2,500.

The article on Fox was headlined “Meet the bundlers: Obama’s fundraising team a who’s who of Hollywood, media,” and began by saying…

“Bundlers are the original movers and shakers in the world of high-dollar campaign fundraising. And President Obama’s reelection machine has enlisted a veritable army of them — a roster that includes some of the biggest names in media and show business.

“Among them are entertainment magnate Tyler Perry, actress Eva Longoria, DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and Vogue editor Anna Wintour. It’s just not Hollywood backing the president — Comcast executive David Cohen, as well as lawyers and finance titans from Goldman Sachs, Barclays Capital and other firms help complete the list of hundreds.”

It should be noted that every contributor who donates $250 or more is subject to disclosure rules. The bundlers themselves are not. We know who is bundling for Obama because his campaign discloses their names, which Mitt Romney refuses to do. The only Romney bundlers who are known are registered lobbyists whom the law requires be disclosed. That’s why the OpenSecrets listing of Obama Bundlers shows 532 names while the list of Romney’s bundlers shows only 22. And, of course, all of Romney’s bundlers on his list are lobbyists. We have no idea how many other bundlers are working in Romney’s behalf. Obama has no lobbyists bundling for his campaign.

The primary point of the Fox News article is that Obama has a large number of bundlers, many of whom are in the entertainment industry. Had Fox bothered to do just a modicum of research they would have discovered that only 25 (6%) of Obama’s bundlers are from Hollywood. What’s more, the implied criticism of bundling ignores the fact that the donors are actually disclosed, while contributions from corporations and billionaires to SuperPACs are are not. So there is transparency of bundling donations that does not exist with the SuperPACs that are a much bigger part of Romney’s operations.

The problem with Fox’s analysis is that they can’t compare Obama’s fundraising to Romney’s because of Romney’s obsessive secrecy. Romney may have many more bundlers than Obama, we just don’t know. He may also have an army of Hollywood elitists bundling for him, we just don’t know that either. The only thing we know is that Romeny does rely heavily on lobbyists while Obama has none acting as bundlers. So Fox is being overtly hypocritical by criticizing Obama while letting Romney off the hook.

If Fox had conducted the necessary research to be able to make appropriate comparisons, this might have been an interesting article. But since Romney’s campaign keeps everyone in the dark, perhaps that should have been the lede. What this article tells us about Obama is useless without comparative data for Romney, but the fact that Obama is forthcoming about his finances and Romney is not would have been the real story for any legitimate news enterprise. Of course the qualification of “legitimate news enterprise” automatically rules out Fox.

Another aspect of the hypocrisy of Fox is that just a few days ago they were complaining bitterly about an Obama web site that identified a few of Romney’s big money backers. Fox characterized this as akin to the Nixon enemies list or McCarthyism. The comparison was ludicrous and utterly detached from reality. But it’s interesting that now Fox thinks it’s perfectly alright to disclose the names of Obama supporters without raising questions about Nixonian or McCarthyite paranoia. Just another example of the doubly standardized hypocrisy that Fox has developed into an art form.

Mitt Romney’s Campaign Slogan: We’re Not Stupid

Posted by on May 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm. 6 Comments :

This week there has been a swirling mini-controversy surrounding the use of the word “Forward” in a new web video posted on Barack Obama’s campaign site. The Right-Wing Noise Machine sprung into action to assert that there was some sort of connection between that word and its use by socialist groups over a hundred years ago.

Of course the word has been used by innumerable organizations that sought only to convey a sense of progress and a positive vision of the future. It is the official slogan of the state of Wisconsin. It is part of the registered servicemark (Reagan Forward) of the Ronald Reagan Society at his alma mater, Eureka College. It was even used by Fox News in on-air promos that shouted “Move Forward.”

What has been ignored in this discussion is what the campaign of Mitt Romney was using for their slogan. Well, I went to his web site and found this:

Mitt Romney - We're Not Stupid

So there you have it. Romney’s campaign slogan is “We’re Not Stupid.” It’s safe to say that this slogan is not in use by any other organization. How many other organizations actually need to remind their supporters that they aren’t idiots?

Tea PartyThe Romney strategists are wisely tackling head-on a serious concern within their constituency. After all, the Tea Party is a major part of the GOP base. Remember the Tea Party? They were the ones disrupting town halls. They were the ones carrying signs that said “Keep government’s hands off my Medicare.” They were the ones who revered the intellectual prowess of Glenn Beck, Herman Cain, and Sarah Palin.

But this is no time to dwell on your flaws. This is the time to proudly display your declaration of non-stupidity. It’s a call to arms that will reverberate throughout the campaign season. Chant this slogan at your rallies. The more you say it, the more people will be forced to consider the message of your insistent affirmation. And while Obama’s supporters are mumbling their Marxist mantras about moving the nation forward, you can stay focused on the one thing that your candidate thinks should be highlighted in these troubled times.

It’s a bold strategy, to be sure. By so forcefully rejecting the stupid, Romney risks alienating one of the biggest and most reliable segments of his GOP base. But apparently the Romney campaign is convinced that it’s a worthwhile risk.

So march forward, I mean ahead, Romneyites. And be sure to ask everyone you know, for the next six months “Are ya votin for Romney?” But don’t be surprised if all they say in response is “We’re not stupid.”

The Swiftboating Of Obama Begins

Posted by on May 2, 2012 at 10:36 am. 12 Comments :

In 2004 the campaign for president was tarnished by a band buttheads who thought that it would be appropriate to smear the military record of a decorated veteran who risked his life in Vietnam (John Kerry), in order to support a frat boy who evaded combat by leaning on the connections of his famous family (George W. Bush).

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth launched a well-financed campaign of distortions and lies in order to prevent Kerry from gaining any popular support for his service to the country. And now a similar campaign has begun by a shadowy group called “Veterans for a Strong America” to deny President Obama any credit for his role in finding and killing Osama Bin Laden.

This video is brazenly dishonest in its portrayal of Obama as negligent in praising the efforts of all of those who had a role in Bin Laden’s demise. Obama has repeatedly and effusively honored everyone from foot soldiers to intelligence operatives to diplomats to civilians to the Navy SEALs, etc. There is abundant evidence of that praise had the liars responsible for this video cared to review it. Instead they chose slap together some deliberately deceitful soundbites of the President speaking in the first person.

As usual, it took the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart to set the record straight. He not only shames the producers of the video above by demonstrating how easy it is to be honest, he also makes the undeniable point that any politician would seek and expect some credit for having orchestrated this sort of dangerous mission and seeing it through to success.

Part One:

Part Two:

Republicans would like to steal every speck of gratitude that the President deserves for having been in charge of this operation. They seem to think that the SEALS planned, executed, and gave themselves the order to proceed without any intervention from the Commander-in-Chief. They also seem to believe that the order was a foregone conclusion that anyone would have made in similar circumstances. However, we know that that is untrue because Mitt Romney said specifically that he would not have chased Bin Laden into Pakistan and he criticized Obama for proposing it.

In 2004 there were, unfortunately, way too many gullible people who fell for the fallacies of the Swiftboat Liars. Hopefully that will not be the case today. President Obama was not solely responsible for determining Bin Laden’s fate. He knows that and says so frequently. But he did play an important role and is entitled to list it on his resume.

Bill O’Reilly And Jesse Watters Lie About Van Jones

Posted by on May 2, 2012 at 2:23 am. 8 Comments :

Bill O'ReillyLast week Bill O’Reilly interviewed his Fox News colleague Jesse Watters about a video Watters had produced wherein he ambushed Van Jones at a green energy convention. The video itself was a frivolous exercise that succeeded mainly in demonstrating how easy it was for Jones to make Watters look foolish.

More interesting was a part of the exchange between O’Reilly and Watters that included a wholly unfounded attribution by Watters that even O’Reilly found unbelievable:

Watters: He [Van Jones] actually said that the EPA has saved more lives than the department of defense and that Republicans want to poison children.
O’Reilly: Jones said that Republicans want to poison children?
Watters: Yes, he did.
O’Reilly: Was there any reason that the GOP wants to commit homicide?
Watters: Jobs. Poisoning children creates jobs.
O’Reilly: Now wait a minute. This guy was working in the Obama administration. He actually said that the GOP wants to poison children?
Watters: We have it on tape.
O’Reilly: Alright. I want to see that tape on Reality Check on Monday.
Watters: OK.

Well, Monday came and went and there was no video. O’Reilly broadcast his Reality Check segment on Tuesday and there was no video. It should come as no surprise that O’Reilly failed to air the video and didn’t even bother to address the fact that he was breaking his promise to do so. The reason for that is simple: There is no video of Jones saying what Watters alleged he said.

The truth is that Jones never said that Republicans “want to poison children.” He responded to accusations that the EPA kills jobs by noting that the EPA actually saves tens of thousands of lives every year by controlling toxic emissions and pollution. Jones suggested that critics be asked “How many American children are you willing to poison per job?” It was a speculative question meant to stimulate discussion about the relative merits of environmental regulation, not an indictment of the GOP as wannabe children poisoners.

This is yet another example of Fox News making irresponsible and dishonest allegations and failing to back them up with evidence. These phony “journalists” have no problem shamelessly making false statements publicly and then simply letting the whole matter drop and hoping their glassy-eyed audience forgets the part where they promised to provide proof. And judging from the non-reaction from the Fox audience, forgetting is something they do willingly.