Those like Matt Taibbi, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Jack Cafferty, David Schuster, Dana Milbank, Chris Cilizza, to name a few, have long enjoyed deep cover because of their supposed stance on social issues. That does not nor never should have bought them a pass. These men purport to be journalists and serious commentators. Never was their vile behavior more evident than the sexist horror show of 2008 against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Their vile, sniggering behavior continues unabated. In fact the only half-hearted apologies ever elicited from any one of these men has only come after a hand slap, a loss of ratings or advertisers…Is that the level of political discourse in this country when discussing women: She devil, bitch, Nurse Ratched, bubblehead?

Rush was forced into the same kind of apology last week. Was he sincere? Doubtful. Will he do it again? Very Likely. Has Bill Maher ever apologized for his endless litany of demeaning statements about women?

Rush Limbaugh is entitled to like or dislike whomever he wants, but if the best way he has to discredit Hillary Clinton is by saying she has “a testicle lockbox” or by calling her a “Femi-Nazi” – I’d say he’s lost the argument. And if Bill Maher likewise has to insult Hillary by saying “They fined CBS a million dollars for showing Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt,” and calls Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “twat” – it is pretty obvious that the cheap shot is all he is good for. It doesn’t say much for his mental capacity otherwise.

Bill Maher just made a million dollar donation to a SuperPAC with the mission of re-electing President Obama. How does that sit with the party of women’s progress? So we don’t care if you treat women like garbage – as long as your check cashes?

Limbaugh and Maher are shock jocks. That’s how they make their money. However, they also both function as commentators on different news programs. But whether they do or not, these two, along with David Letterman and Jay Leno, have powerful bully pulpits. They cannot hide behind the safety net of “comedian” or “host” when what they are selling is hate-speech. Their jokes, satire, rants, whatever you call them, have a devastating effect night after night that is just as costly as that of the vile pundits on MSNBC or CNN.

Just imagine the equivalent comment being made by any one of these guys toward President Obama? What is the equivalent comment to calling a man a slut, a whore, a c*nt, a twat, a moron, a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, saying that a particular woman “reads copy with a big set of hairy balls in her mouth” (that was from Taibbi)…What if you made a slur against a Jewish person? A Muslim? Juan Williams made a general comment voicing his nervousness about Muslims traveling in traditional garb on airplanes and NPR fired him.

I have no objection to anyone taking a female candidate or a woman making statements in the public sphere to task on the merits. But let’s stick to the issues, shall we?

Why is it necessary for these men (or the complicit women who egg them on) to call women by the most denigrating names possible – as if their very gender was at the root of their crime.

Moral relativism is not acceptable. The source of these comments does not matter, nor the target. This is hate speech, not free speech. If it were not hate speech, what else accounts for all the violence against women in this country and around the world? Clearly, there still exists some sort of sick need to put women in their place, either with words or by violent means. My fear is that men who control the air waves or use ink by the barrel influence society in negative ways when it comes to how we view women. They decide what a woman is worth and influence how they should be treated by speaking of them so disrespectfully.

If the Rush Limbaughs and Bill Mahers and Keith Olbermanns of the world cannot find a more intelligent way to take issue with a female subject than resorting to acting like bullying twelve year olds, then maybe they are not up to the job.

We are so busy in this country protecting every group under the sun from offense. Yet women are still graded and degraded on the basis of appearance, age, sexuality, vocal quality – anything that will allow them to be cleaved into body parts and then disempowered. It is up to women on both sides of the aisle to stop themselves from being used and manipulated in this debate and express a zero tolerance policy. It is up to men on both sides of the aisle to stop grading on a curve when it comes to their own transgressions or those of their brothers.

While it was only fitting that Rush Limbaugh apologize for his behavior, he should not be singled out or used politically as a distraction from the larger debate. If politicians are only coming to the defense of women when they need our votes, it is up to us to say ‘you can do better.’

President Obama called Ms. Fluke to express his support. But if he really wants to support her – then he must return Bill Maher’s million dollar donation to his re-election campaign, since Maher, like Limbaugh is a horrid culprit in this debate and a regular purveyor of sexist attacks upon women of both parties.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama have two beautiful daughters. I know they would never want Sasha and Malia to be on the receiving end of the sexist commentary made by the likes of a Limbaugh or a Maher. Given that a newscaster by the name of David Shuster referred to the Clintons as pimps and their daughter Chelsea a whore by inference, nothing is outside the realm of possibility any longer. Propriety is a thing of the past. No insult to any woman is off limits it seems.

The President has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world. Rejecting Mr. Maher’s money would go a long way toward proving that this zero tolerance policy starts at the top, and is not just about politics.

****************
Anita Finlay is the author of the soon to be released book, Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary supporter’s rude awakening.

Oh, boy – who would have thought that something like this would be causing this Administration so much headache? Not that there weren’t other issues that SHOULD have received this level of scrutiny, but for some reason, the MSM is finally ready to start investigating some of the shenanigans iin which Obama and his Administration have participated. And whooey, this is turning out to be some kind of investigation.

Perhaps this new interest by the MSM is because Congress is taking umbrage at this Administration shelling out over half a billion bucks to a company doomed to fail, and are they ever. Check out this discussion between Rep. Tim Murphy and Jonathan Silver, who heads up the Energy Loan Department:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And there is still more to this issue:

Click here to view the embedded video.

After giving the MSM some props, Anderson Cooper almost made me take back my words. Love how he tries to give the Obama Administration a pass on this. But here’s the thing – in two and a half years, this Administration has created a little over 3,500 jobs out of a $38 BILLION dollar budget. for loans.

To demonstrate even further Obama’s complaint tone-deafness on this issue, where did he go while n NC to try and ram his “jobs bill” down people’s throats (think: Obamacare)? To a “green energy” company WestStar Precision, which, by the way, had just shipped a boatload of jobs to Costa Rica. Way to push your jobs bill, Mr. President!

It was while he was in Raleigh, NC, that we became privy to the reason Congress should pass this bill: out of love for Obama. I am not kidding you. It isn’t because of what’s in the plan (yet another stimulus to go along with the other stimulus that didn’t work), but because people worship the Messiah:

Click here to view the embedded video.

There is something seriously wrong with this man. And Congress, if they go along with this new addition to our deficit.

What a mess this all is. What a mess Obama is making of our country with his failed, flawed policies, demands, and actions. Solyndra is only one example of many. Feel free to discuss Solyndra, the Administration’s push for this massive loan which is likely long gone, and the machinations in which it has engaged to cover this up, or any other policies (“Fast and Furious” springs to mind and Holder’s claim he knew nothing). And if you can explain to me why a “green energy” job costs $640,000 a PIECE, I would love to hear it.

Oh, wait – I know. Obama was NOT great on women’s issues, he did not treat women well and his sexism was in evidence frequently on the campaign trail, his wife, too. Seriously, do I need to provide evidence to support that after all this time, and the numerous links/examples? Seriously? Okay – here is one more, with some bonus coverage of how misogynistic the media was:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And then comes this report from the Washington Post in a review of the new Ron Suskind book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President. To say it is not glowing about how women – upper level women – were treated in the Obama Administration is putting it mildly:

Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.

At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.

Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”

Uh huh. But that is not the full story. It wasn’t just that some of these women weren’t involved in the campaign. This isn’t about one group being outsiders trying to get into the inner circle, no, not at all. It was women-specific:

[snip] One of the most striking quotes in the book came from former White House communications director Anita Dunn, who was quoted as saying that, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Dunn says she was quoted out of context and told The Post on Friday that she told Suskind “point blank” that the White House was not a hostile work environment.

On Monday, Suskind allowed a Post reporter to review a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which took place over the telephone in April. In that conversation, Dunn is heard telling Suskind about a conversation she had with Jarrett.

“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Dunn is heard telling Suskind. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” [snip]

So first, Dunn tells the truth, then tries to lie to cover up for Obama, but her own voice confirms this quote, “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” That is mighty damning, indeed (and honestly, Anita, STOP COVERING FOR THIS MAN! Good grief. Have a little self-respect already.).

But Dunn was not the only one:

Other episodes were relayed to Suskind by Christina Romer, former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, whose disputes with Summers have been widely reported, including in an earlier book on Obama’s White House by journalist Jonathan Alter.

Romer is quoted by Suskind saying, after being excluded by Summers at a meeting, “I felt like a piece of meat.”

Holy smokes. These two women were not some underlings who resented not being higher up in the chain. No, these two women had pretty prominent positions. Wow. That is an incredible statement. And it goes on from there. Click here to read the rest of the article.

I might add, what makes that statement so striking is that most women know how incredibly difficult it is to prove that kind of “workplace” hostility. Too often, the perpetrators are defended, and circle the wagons to protect them. Heck, as noted, even Dunn tried to protect Obama from the charge. So it is telling indeed that she used that phrase in her conversation with Jarrett. Telling, indeed.

I wish I was surprised. I am not. When Obama made Jon Favreau the Head White House Speechwriter, and allowed him to retain that position even after the following photo came to light, I knew that was the kind of ship Obama would be running:

And that was AFTER then-Senator Clinton had been named as Obama’s Secretary of State choice.

Yeah. That sums up how things were going in the Obama Administration perfectly, don’t you think? Just how much do you think has changed now? Let’s hear it!

And it is pissing me off. Seriously. I don’t know if it is the off-the-chart pain levels I am enduring, or what, but it is pissing me off that – all of a sudden – the people who were in a position to make clear how inept Obama was, is, and would be, failed to convey that message adequately. No, not Cheney – I mean the media and Democratic political pundits who should have known, and most likely did know, better, but went-along-to-get-along so they could keep blathering on CNN, MSNBC, or whatever channel would have them. They rode this wave of a created back story of who Obama was, one that did not match the REALITY of who he was, by his handlers and string pullers rather than DOING THEIR JOBS, and now, NOW, they are coming out saying, “oh, yeah – Hillary would have been SO much better” after calling her, her husband, and her supporters a bunch of racist gun and Bible toters who could barely get dressed in the morning. All I can say is, BITE ME.

Ahem. Sorry. I have no patience or tolerance for this crap right now. Clinton would have been the best, they knew it then, but sexism trumps all any day of the week, and they sure as hell were not going to support any old (!) woman over a biracial freshman senator. Nosirree bob. Even as I write that one sentence – a freshman senator beating out a woman who had a vastly superior resume was treated like crap by these people in her own party AND in the media. And now they come crying saying it should have been her? Please. They CHOSE him over her. (Photo credit: blackagendareport.com)

It is not like the information wasn’t out there for all the world to see. They chose to ignore it, they chose to cover it up (thank you, JournoListers and the LA Times to name just two more), they failed to vet, they failed to fact check, they failed to keep their emotions in check, they failed, failed, failed at their jobs, and now we are all paying the price. For instance, the NY Times, and other outlets, repeatedly have pushed the meme that Obama is even keeled, even tempered, and unshakeable. It is a pile of horse manure. They have just ignored his snippyness, arrogance, and short fuse because it did not fit the image they – the media – were crafting for him (no doubt at the insistance of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod).

The truth was out there, though. Consider the opening paragraphs of this story from a reporter who liked Obama, but was professional enough to be honest about him in his extensive piece, “Barack Obama And Me“:

It’s not quite eight in the morning and Barack Obama is on the phone screaming at me. He liked the story I wrote about him a couple weeks ago, but not this garbage.

Months earlier, a reporter friend told me she overheard Obama call me an asshole at a political fund-raiser. Now here he is blasting me from hundreds of miles away for a story that just went online but hasn’t yet hit local newsstands.

It’s the first time I ever heard him yell, and I’m trembling as I set down the phone. I sit frozen at my desk for several minutes, stunned.

This is an extensive, in-depth piece, which goes into Emil Jones, Obama’s “kingmaker,” and so, so much more. But one other piece I cannot resist putting in since I have mentioned is his fake Southern accent (grrrrr):

My view of Obama then wasn’t all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it.

My point, and as Ellen Degeneres would say, I do have one, is that the information was there, from this author, to John Kass, Lynn Sweet, and others in the Chicago area, but the MSM refused to upset the apple cart, supporting the myth of Obama, not the fact of Obama. All I can say is, thanks shitloads for that, you worthless hacks. Look where your complete and utter lack of professionalism got us. Told you I have no patience for this right now.

And for the love of all that is holy, stop pushing Hillary NOW. The time is long past,t he damage done. She is not going to run. She has made that abundantly clear. Party before country, she will not go up against her boss, and even if she did, it is too late. She has already been touting his policies all over the globe. If she now claimed she didn’t support any of them, but hawked them anyway, well, do I really need to finish that thought for you? I didn’t think so.

So, yeah – I have had it with the handwringing, coulda, woulda, shoulda crapola the MSM, and some political pundits, are now peddling. They should have done their homework before the last election instead of crying about it now that the damage is done. They have no one to blame but themselves, and believe you me, they deserve all the blame they get.

Here’s a thought – maybe it isn’t just those in DC who deserve to be liberated from their political positions, but the vast majority of “journalists,” too. I am sure there are a whole bunch of real journalists out there looking for jobs. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change? Journalists who did the groundwork, did their HOMEwork, and didn’t insert their opinion into their stories? Oh, yes – now THAT is some “change” for which we can “hope.”

Until then, just spare me the current MSM/pundit outrage at what should have been. Clinton was the best choice, bar none, and you backed the wrong horse in that race for the most superficial of reasons. Admit that, acknowledge that, and for heaven’s sake, DO YOUR JOBS already. And stop pissing me off.

How about you?

In the midst of commemorations for 9/11/01, a day on which we remembered those who were killed, and reaffirmed the commitment to keep our nation safe, the Taliban was busy in Afghanistan. Our officials were concerned about a 9/11 attack – but we thought it would be on our shores, in an area already hit.

And in a way, it was. The Taliban attacked our soldiers at a military base:

The massive Taliban truck bomb that exploded outside an American military base in a restive eastern district injured nearly 80 U.S. troops and killed five Afghans, Western and Afghan officials said Sunday.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which took place Saturday evening in the Sayedabad district of Wardak province. That is the same district where insurgents last month shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter, killing 30 American troops, the majority of them Navy SEALs, including some from the unit responsible for killing Osama bin Laden.

The Chinook crash, which remains under investigation, was the worst single loss of American military lives in the nearly decade-long war.

Although no Americans died in Saturday’s blast, it appeared to be one of the biggest casualty counts in an insurgent strike on a Western military installation. The bombing also carried symbolic weight, coming on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. [snip]

Thank heavens none of our soldiers were killed, but for almost 80 of them to have been injured, is significant enough. That said, it is very sad that others did die in this attack on our base. And, thank heavens that the base was so fortified that more damage was not done to our troops or the base.

The article continues:

[snip] Hours after the attack, a solemn ceremony was held at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul on Sunday morning to remember the victims of Sept. 11. Before an audience of several hundred embassy employees, military officials and Afghan dignitaries, the American flag was lowered to half-staff and a lone bugle sounded taps. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It was that very embassy in Kabul that the Taliban attacked on Monday. Though the New York Times seems loathe to cloak the attackers with that moniker:

Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday, pelting the heavily guarded compounds with rockets in an attack that raised new questions about the security of Afghanistan’s capital and the Westerners working there.

At least 10 explosions — apparently from rockets launched by militants — and waves of automatic weapons fire were reported amid the drone of sirens and English-language warnings telling Americans inside the embassy to take cover.

[...]

It was unclear precisely how many assailants were behind the assault or whether they were attacking from a single or multiple locations. The attackers were holed up on several floors of a tall, partly built concrete building that offered a bird’s-eye view of the secured diplomatic and military compounds about a half mile away. Flashes from gun barrels could be seen as the militants fired from their perch. Afghan security forces returned fire from the ground, sending puffs of concrete dust into the air as bullets slapped the building. [snip]

So far, no Americans have been killed, but the Taliban is taking credit for this assault, which the Times has not yet verified, hence their hesitancy to label it as such. Other news organizations are claiming this is indeed the continuing actions of the Taliban insurgents.

Regardless who is responsible, these attacks, the third since June, cannot stand:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. will do everything it can to combat those who committed a “cowardly attack” on the U.S. Embassy and other buildings in Kabul.

Clinton said the U.S. was moving to secure the area in Afghanistan’s capital and “ensure that those who perpetrated this attack are dealt with.”

I would certainly hope so. For live updates of the situation in Kabul, click here or here.

I suppose this shouldn’t be a big surprise, considering what happened outside our embassy in England on 9/11:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I am pretty sure they were chanting, “Burn, Burn, USA.” We are mourning the loss of life and liberty in our country, and on that very day, this group is marching against us in England. Wow. It is all a matter of degrees.

Meanwhile, rioters attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, Egypt over the weekend. Yikes. This is not good. Especially since these rioters then turned on some of those who were reporting this attack, notably, CNN:

An angry crowd lingering near the Israeli embassy in Cairo after an attack on the building a day earlier turned on journalists reporting the incident Saturday, accusing at least one of being an Israeli spy.

As a CNN crew filmed the embassy from across the street, another crew from American public television — led by Egyptian television producer Dina Amer — approached the building.

[...]

“There was this older lady who decided to follow me and rally people against me,” Amer recalled. “She said ‘you’re a spy working with the Americans.’ Then they swarmed me and I was a target.”

A growing crowd surrounded Amer and her colleagues, as they tried to leave the scene. Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, a producer working for CNN, rushed to help escort Amer through the angry crowd. But suddenly the two reporters were pinned against the railing of an overpass by young men who were accusing Amer of being an Israeli spy.

Yelling “I’m Egyptian,” Fahmy managed to pull Amer another 10 meters down the road, until the pressure from the mob overwhelmed the pair. Amer screamed as she and Fahmy were knocked to the ground and the crowd started to trample them.

[...]

“I was thinking, how powerless I was because there was no police to save us,” Fahmy said. “I was worried that they were going to rape her.”

[...]
Amer had few words to describe the terrifying ordeal. “They were animals,” she said.

I would say that sums it up. But the CNN reporter and crew were not the only ones:

[snip]

Other Egyptian journalists told CNN they were also attacked Saturday while trying to report near the Israeli embassy.

Ahmed Aleiba, a correspondent with Egyptian state television, said he was pursued by civilians and soldiers. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy cow, that must have been terrifying, especially for Amer. I cannot help but think of Lara Logan and her ordeal as she tried to report on the uprising in February. This is all just disturbing as hell, especially now that the soldiers are joining in with the civilians.

I hope and pray that those inside these embassies in both Afghanistan and Egypt remain safe, but that those who are trying to report on these attacks do, as well. These are uneasy days, to be sure, and highlight that the lessons of 9/11 cannot be forgotten. Uneasy days are ahead, no doubt…

UPDATE: My buddy, Nunly, provided the link to this story, which is disturbing in light of the recent attacks: U.S. Backs Move To Let Taliban Open Headquarters In Qatar In The Hope Of Ending War In Afghanistan.

Draw your own conclusions.

As many of you know, Keith Olbermann left his 6:00pm slot there for any number of reasons many of us would be willing to suggest were the true reasons. Regardless, he has been gone for a number of months now (though not off the tv – he found another cable channel to take him).

You will never believe who they found to replace him.

But before I make the big reveal, it seemed that Olbemann’s likely successor was Cenk Uygur, of “Young Turk” fame. Indeed, he was on the path. Or so he thought. But then something strange happened, according to Mr. Uygur (h/t to Harp2 for this video):

For those of you who may not have internet service that supports videos, suffice it to say, Mr. Uygur was told that he would not be stepping into Olbermann’s shoes because some in Washington didn’t like his “tone,” according to Mr. Uygur in this NY Times article (which also highlights the NY Times incredible bias):

[snip] Mr. Uygur, who by most accounts was well liked within MSNBC, said in an interview that he turned down the new contract because he felt Mr. Griffin had been the recipient of political pressure. In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC is home to many hosts who criticize President Obama and other Democrats from a progressive point of view, but at times Mr. Uygur could be especially harsh.

[...]

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail Wednesday that his staff did not raise any concerns about the show “with Phil Griffin or anyone else.”

“I didn’t agree with everything said on the show, but certainly didn’t have any problem with it,” Mr. Pfeiffer added. [snip]

Of course he didn’t. That’s why Uygur claimed that the head of MSNBC met with him, and told him that they were Washington Insiders.

Just as I am so sure the White House had nothing to do with MSNBC indefinitely suspending the editor of Newsweek, Mark Halperin, for a comment he made on “Morning Joe.” Oh, wait. Yes they did. (Now, I do not think it was appropriate for Halperin to use the language he did about a sitting president, but honestly – the things people said about Bush and Clinton were pretty harsh, but I don’t think either one of those presidents had their toadies call the network and insist the person be let go. We do have an amendment about what people can say, after all, whether they like it or not.)

Okay. So, it is not going to be Cenk, since he has the unmitigated gall to actually question what Obama does once in a while. No sirree, can’t have THAT on MSNBO.

Wanna guess who it’s going to be? Oh, you won’t – this is just so freakin’ glaringly biased for Obama, you would never believe that an alleged news channel would hire this man for such a prime slot. But you would be wrong.

It’s the Reverend Al Sharpton. I swear. It isn’t official as of this writing, but it is “Imminent,” according to the New York Times:

[snip] Mr. Sharpton’s imminent hiring, which was acknowledged by three people at the channel on condition of anonymity because the contract had not been signed, is significant in part because MSNBC and other news channels have been criticized for a paucity of minority hosts in prominent time slots. Mr. Sharpton, who is black and is a well-known civil rights activist and radio host, has been guest hosting in the 6 p.m. time slot for the last three weeks.

There had been uncertainty about the 6 p.m. slot ever since the channel’s marquee anchor, Keith Olbermann, departed in January, prompting Ed Schultz to be moved to 10 p.m. from 6. Suddenly Mr. Uygur, who had been made a paid contributor to MSNBC months earlier, was handed 6 p.m., a big coup given that he had earlier campaigned to have his progressive Web show “The Young Turks” picked up by MSNBC. [snip]

Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton is now going to have one of the plum, prime, slots on MSNBC. He is SO impartial, so even handed, in his outlook and statements. And I trust you know that it total and complete snark on my part. Of course, he is wildly partisan, taking offense where there is none, taking on causes that have little merit, and on and on Io could go. One thing is for certain about the good reverend – he loves to be on the tee-vee, so no doubt, this is a dream come true for him.

As for MSNBO, come on already, make it official. Go ahead and change your logo to this:

Seriously, I think we would all have more respect for you if you were honest about who and what you are. As a bonus, my partner, who created this for me, said you can even have it for free.

Until then, I imagine you will keep pretending to be a “news” source with the likes of Al Sharpton as your prime time host. And I imagine a lot of us will be laughing at you for it…

There was so, so much more to this woman than I knew. Mainly, I knew her as the wife of the bumbling Gerald Ford, who took over the presidency after the Watergate Scandal felled Richard Nixon. I have since learned that the clumsy, klutzy depiction of Gerald Ford was the result of one trip, glorified by Chevy Chase on SNL, and forever associated with this former Michigan quarterback and US Navy veteran. Such is the power of the media, even those dedicated to spoofs (how many people still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house after Tina Fey made the comment on SNL?).

But back to Betty Ford. In her early days, she was a dancer, modern dance in particular. She even danced in New York with Martha Graham’s company at Carnegie Hall (who knew?). There is much to this woman, including how involved she was with women’s issues, and the work of the president in general:

[snip] According to their son Jack, Betty Ford not only read through the President’s briefing papers on political issues he faced, and reviewed with him those pertaining to social programs or any which affected women. She also quietly worked as a conduit on legislative and other domestic agenda issues, both to and from him to others. Although she refused to ever discuss what issues they may have disagreed on, she did admit to serving as what she called, a “sounding board,” and exercising “pillow talk” on occasion. She also admitted to reviewing his more important speeches, offering advice to make cuts and use livelier language, without the need to always spell out details but rather leave audiences with some eagerness for further clarifications. Publicly, she gave only faint enthusiasm for the public relations effort “Whip Inflation Now,” a public relations action effort by the Administration intended to encourage cost-cutting and budgeting by citizens to counter the economic inflation of 1974-1975. In the White House, Mrs. Ford emphasized that she was reducing both her family and public entertaining food costs by serving less-expensive poultry, substituting soup for the pricier fish course, having smaller portions served. Personally, she stated, she would have her older shoes dyed rather than buy new ones for each event she needed them, and purchased her cosmetics in larger bulk to keep cost down. She also signed a “consumer’s pledge” to buy “only those products and services priced at or below present levels…” [snip]

She was an amazing woman, to be sure. If you have the time and inclination, you can read all about her at the National First Ladies’ Library.

First Lady Ford’s funeral is Tuesday, July 12th. Something else I did not know is that presidents and first ladies prepare their funerals down to the detail. According to this Washington Post article, First Lady Ford knew a few years back who she wanted to deliver her eulogy:

[snip] In 2006, Cokie Roberts got a call from Ford’s daughter Susan: her mom wanted Roberts to deliver a eulogy, whenever that time came, at her funeral.

“Wow — that’s an incredible honor,” the veteran D.C. journalist replied. Then, she recalls, Susan gave Roberts her assignment: “Mother wants you to talk about the way things used to be.”

Meaning?

“A time in Washington when Democrats and Republicans used to be friends, when their families were all friends,” Roberts told us Monday. “The main message she wanted me to say is when you’re friends, government works. It’s like she planned it for this week.”

Roberts has been friends with the Fords for decades. Her father, Hale Boggs, was House majority leader when Gerald Ford was minority leader. Her mother, Lindy, teamed with Betty on various causes. The familes went to school and church together.

“They were all friends with each other,” Roberts said. When her father disappeared after an Alaska plane crash in 1972, the Fords were “devastated. . . they were so supportive.” [snip]

Ah, yes, those were the days, were they not? Sadly, they seem long gone, it seems…(There will be two other speakers at the Washington funeral, First Lady Rosalynn Carter and the Betty Ford Center’s Geoffrey Mason. First Lady Ford will have a funeral service in Michigan, too, where she will be laid to rest with her husband.)

What an amazing, complicated, dedicated woman First Lady Betty Ford was. My sincerest condolences to her family and friends. In honor of First Lady Ford being an Episcopalian, I have the following rendition of the Nunc Dimittis* is in her honor (this is one of my favorite hymns from Vespers):

Rest in peace.

* Translation:

Salva nos, Domine, vigilantes, custodi nos
dormientes, ut vigil emus cum Christo et requiescamus in pace.
Save us, O Lord, while we are awake, and guard us
when we sleep, that we may watch with Christ and rest in peace.

Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace:
Quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum
Quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum:
Lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae Israel.
Now Thou dost dismiss Thy servant, O Lord, according to Thy word in peace;
Because my eyes have seen Thy salvation,
Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

Just from the title of this Sheila Marikar ABC report, you get a hint of a bias. The article doesn’t help to dispel that sensation, rather it escalates it:

There’s the stereotype of the Sarah Palin supporter, and then there’s Sonnie Johnson.

The 30-year-old African-American mother and wife is featured in “The Undefeated” as one of the many people Palin captivated when John McCain thrust her onto the national stage as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. In Pella, Iowa today for the premiere of the film, Johnson said she latched on to Palin when the former Alaska governor took the stage at the Republican National Convention.

“We were watching it on TV and my daughter was like, ‘A girl can be president?,’” Johnson recalled. “And I said, ‘Yes, baby, girls can do anything.’ That was the moment — I saw that look in my daughter’s eye, that anything in possible. The next week, I went to my very first political event, and that was to see Sarah Palin. John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Johnson has become increasingly involved in the tea party since then, speaking at tea party events around her native Virginia. She’ll give the keynote address at an event held by the Charlottesville, VA. tea party on the Fourth of July with her young daughter by her side. [snip]

Obviously, the elephant in the room is that Hillary Clinton had run to be president, but she was not the party’s pick (and I use those words deliberately). So that Johnson’s daughter saw Palin as a potential president if McCain won is a difference. Palin was on the ticket, Clinton (unfortunately) was not.

That being said, there are so many glaring issues wrong with the entire way Marikar framed this piece that I barely know where to start. First, there is the whole “stereotype” assumption made by this “reporter.” One of the comments summed it up pretty succinctly:

VG; “stereotype” Who put the stereotype on Palin?? All you Obama loving scumbags in the corrupt MSM. You people make me sick.

I think many of us can appreciate this person’s sentiment about the circular practice of the MSM – castigate and attack, then stand back and “report” people regurgitating back the attacks launched, then explain that as the reality of the situation.

There were a few more comments I must share with you, beginning with the issue of women:

John; Unfortunately, women can’t be president. Just watching the vitriol that has been thrown at Sarah Palin makes that clear. The attacks on her family have been disgraceful. The attempts to dig through 24,000 pages of her email to try to find any dirt also makes it clear that America is not ready for a female leader. Best to tell our daughters to become teachers or mothers so they don’t become the next woman to be Palinized….

Jim (in response to Katherine); “There was a woman running in the Dem Primary, and she was pilloried by the misogynistic media… Palin got it X2, and she is still standing, and appears to be stronger than ever. Just sayin’.”

@Katherine: Couldn’t have said it better. I am an ex-Democrat and have had it with the way the democratic party takes the women constituency for granted. I am sick of how they treated Hillary. This was a woman that was many times more accomplished than Obama and after Obama’s presidency we can safely say she would have been many times more effective as a president. Now they are doing the same thing to Palin. I am just sick of the venom that has been thrown at her – just sick of it. [snip]

Amen, amen, and amen – I could not agree more. Many of you know that this has been my refrain about the Democratic Party, Obama, and the blatant, virulent misogyny they have been spewing our way.

But there is another piece to all of this:

[snip] “She’ll be on stage with me,” Johnson said. “I want to get her involved, little by little. I like to say that for the black community, nothing will change until we learn to love our children more than we love the Democratic party.”

After Stephen K. Bannon cast her in his 2010 documentary about conservative women leaders, “Fire From the Heartland,” he asked Johnson to speak about Palin’s influence on her for “The Undefeated.” Other tea party personalities have failed to capture Johnson’s attention as Palin has.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – calling out the black community for its allegiance to the Democrats is a mighty interesting turn. No doubt, that will raise some eyebrows, along with charges of being an “Uncle Tom.” I don’t know about you, but it does seem that whenever a black person does not subscribe to a particular point of view they are, by necessity, an “Uncle Tom.” I thought this comment by Colint summer it up:

Black woman as “unlikely” supporter…. funny…. imagine that, a black who isn’t brainwashed into loving the useless Democrats. Wow… what a revelation.

Could she have figured out the lie… figured out that the Democrats are race baiters?

Good question. Of course, Ms. Johnson would not have to look far. Heck, she need look no farther than my representative, Jim Clyburn, to see numerous instances of race baiting.

I don’t know about you, but I found this to be a pretty interesting glimpse into both how the MSM tries to package information, and how more people are not buying what they are selling. Maybe there really is hope yet.

UPDATE: Speaking of the media, The Hollywood Reporter has a glimpse into the new movie, “The Undefeated”. Hold onto your hats, this is not for the faint of heart:

[snip] The movie begins with Sen. John McCain introducing his running mate, then quickly cuts to the Hollywood sign, and the music turns ominous. A TV news anchor says, “Hollywood has a new favorite pastime: taking aim at Sarah Palin.”

Then the celebrity montage begins: Damon likens Palin to a “really bad Disney movie” and says she’s “really scary”; Letterman attacks her, and the discourse descends in to the filthy from there. Maher insults her on his TV show, Madonna screams obscenities about her while on stage, and comedians use graphic, severely bleeped language to describe Palin and the intensity with which they “hate her.”

When the montage is through, the screen goes dark and a Bible verse comes into focus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, indeed we will. And the fruits being sown by these people against a woman they have never met, using the vilest of language to describe her, and even attacking her special needs child, says it all.

David Brock, the conservative turned liberal advocate, has recently garnered a considerable amount of press coverage for his attacks on Fox News for, among many other things, allegedly taking over leadership of the Republican Party. What the news coverage has ignored is his use of tax-free funds for his organization, Media Matters for America (MMA), for these attacks — a form of government support for activities that clearly do not merit tax-exempt status and that as a result infringe on Fox News’ First Amendment rights.

MMA was originally established as an Internal Revenue Service Section 501(c)(3) organization, that is, an organization that can receive tax-deductible contributions to engage in educational activities. The more precise purpose was to counter alleged media bias and so to “identify occurrences of excessive bias in the American media, educate the public as to their existence, and to work with members of the media to reduce them.”

What MMA actually is doing, however, moves far afield from identifying possible bias to mounting a campaign to undermine a major media outlet and to promote the Democratic Party and progressive causes associated with it. Mr. Brock himself has described this new strategy as “a war on Fox,” an effort “to disrupt [Rupert Murdoch‘s] commercial interests” and look for ways to turn regulators against News Corp.’s media outlets. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

It does not matter if you like Fox, or hate it, but for taxpayer dollars to go to support an alleged non-profit that has a clear political agenda is unacceptable, regardless of whose political agenda it is. There are laws in this country against that sort of thing, after all. And there is that pesky matter of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. Taxpayers should NOT be funding this organization. If George Soros wants to fund it, that’s his decision, but Media Matters sure should not receive our money as a “non-profit.” That is just ridiculous.

And speaking of money, Obama was in New York Thursday night at a few fundraisers, trying to fill his coffers. I just have to ask – who is it that can afford a $35,800 a plate dinner?? That is not a typo – there are five numbers there on purpose. Just wondering.

While Obama was at it, he did a little pandering to the LGBT community, claiming he thinks we should have the same rights in this country as everyone else. I agree with that, but what CNN was not so great about reporting was that Obama also said he thought it should be a state matter. Huh – that’s the same thing Michelle Bachmann said in the recent debate (to give you a comparison).

Meanwhile, DADT is STILL the law of the land over 6 months later after the big hoopla in December. Yep, the government has not finished what it needs to do to change that. Big surprise, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so…

Add to that Obama misspeaking about a Medal of Honor recipient while pandering at Fort Drum:

[snip] “Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”[snip]

Except it was. Oops…

There is more going on, and feel free to discuss whatever you wish!

You will not believe what he has said now. During a discussion about Rep. Anthony Weiner’s immoral, indecent, misogynistic, perverted behavior, Chris Matthews had this to say (h/t to Sowsear1 for the link):

[snip] They never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally – you can say backward if you want – but they don’t like this kind of stuff at all. They’re not part of that 56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens who say, “okay, we can live with this guy. [snip]

Oh, where to begin? The 56% of people in Brooklyn and Queens who are okay with Weiner’s behavior, which is disturbing in and of itself, or the claim that only conservative, culturally backward Christians would be upset by this kind of behavior?

Good grief. Well, let me start with the latter. It is not just rural, “culturally backward,” conservative Christians who are upset by this despicable behavior of an official elected to one of the highest offices in the land. And some of us are not looking at this in terms of how it will affect the Democrats’ chances in 2012, as Matthews was, but in terms of the most basic decency and decorum, sorely lacking in Weiner’s behavior. (Feel free to add your own reasons why this was an assholic thing to say.)

And speaking of Weiner, the plot continues to thicken. Weiner has admitted engaging in communications with a 17 year old girl. His spokesperson assures us that there was nothing untoward about the contact whatsoever. Since Weienr has been so honest and forthright throughout this process, we have every reason to believe him. Oh, wait, no, no, he wasn’t. He lied through his teeth up one side and down the other, calling to meet with media outlets to lie some more. As if I didn’t think he already needed to resign. Holy cow.

It is the weekend, so a little music is in order. The following Patsy Cline is a classic, and goes out to all of Weiner’s Twitter pals:

Oh, and this one is a bit crazy, and goes out to Weiner’s wife, Huma (h/t to ScrewtheDNC):

Your turn for “Crazy, Crazy, Everywhere!”

Then there is political commentator Kirsten Power’s take on this situation from her revelatory account in The Daily Beast. She was most distressed by this scandal given her long friendship with and trust of, er, Mr. Weiner…Not only had she believed his endless lies and media manipulations, but the months of his “sexting” encounters that have now been uncovered reveal something to her about the man that is far more disturbing:

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women. In referring to oral sex, Wiener tells her, “You will gag on me before you c** with me in you” and “[I’m] thinking about gagging your hot mouth with my c***.” This is not about sex. It’s about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don’t want to gag a woman with your penis unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women.

Ms. Powers is correct. The only people who wish to sublimate others, who can only feel bigger by making others feel smaller or powerless are those who feel small themselves. Double entendre notwithstanding.

But Ms. Power’s conclusion is most telling in that I fear her disillusionment with her own party will only grow over time:

Despite my disappointment in his behavior and my concerns about his capacity to be in a leadership position, my heart still aches for him and his family. We are all flawed human beings, and this is not about meting out judgment. It’s about having some sort of standard for what the Democratic Party stands for—especially regarding treating women with dignity and respect—and Congressman Weiner has fallen far short of even the low standard to which we generally hold our elected officials. It’s time for him to go.

The Democratic Party may say it stands for the respectful treatment of women, yet the 2008 and 2010 election cycles and the continued crude verbiage employed against women candidates — or any woman with whom they do not agree — leftie MSNBC host Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” for example — show that Democrats only pretend to respect women for votes. Real respect is something they do not understand. Just ask Hillary Clinton, — that she-devil-Nurse-Ratched-vaginal-American-Tonya-Harding-tea-party-having-white-bitch, who according to Senator Leahy, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid et al, should have just shut up and sat down for the good of the party.

And just how much respect has Mr. Weiner shown for his wife, long time SoS Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. Powers points out there is already a whisper campaign underway to blame the now pregnant Ms. Abedin for Weiner’s behavor. This likewise follows a longtime pattern in American culture, regardless of party, to blame the woman for the man’s indiscretions. She travels a lot, they murmured…and what else are they trying to insinuate? Hillary was blamed for Bill. And in fact, even Michelle Obama was blamed for her husband sitting in the wrong church for twenty years.

Are men adults responsible for their own behavior? Or a bunch of overgrown Peter Pan’s singularly lacking in moral compass or common sense? We do both women and men a disservice by granting oxygen to these outworn stereotypes.

Several party leaders agree with Ms. Power’s assessment that eight term congressman Weiner should resign. I am sure he has become quite the inconvenience heading into an election year:

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz, a leader of the party’s House campaign committee, called Wednesday for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign after he admitted he sent lewd photos to women and talked dirty with them via Twitter and Facebook.

Weiner’s behavior was so offensive that he has lost the ability to command respect from his constituents and brought dishonor to the House, Schwartz said.

“As Americans we have the right to expect better behavior from members of Congress, leaders of our country,” Schwartz said in an interview. “I don’t think we should accept it.”

Lastly, we have the bread and circuses aspect of this entire episode. As blogger, dbsweden, pointed out in the New York Times today:

Here we go again! If it isn’t about celebrity nits like Paris Hilton or Charlie Sheen it’s about the inconsequential sexual activities of Vitter or Weiner or Spitzer. And now we focus on Weiner’s pregnant wife. For crying out loud, when are we going to get news of significant consequence like the amazing abilities of Senators and Congressmen to do seven to eleven percent better picking stock winners than even the experts on Wall Street? University researchers in Georgia and Florida have eye-opening figures on the! investments of Washington politicians that somehow haven’t managed to make the pages of the national press.

Fellow readers, do any of you wonder why Americans remain largely ignorant of genuine malfeasances in Congress by virtue of all the soporific sex scandals? Wake up, America! Demand honest investigative reporting on why Washington is dysfunctional and almost totally corrupt, on why the rich are being coddled while the remaining 98% of Americans are being shafted. Let’s get less news from the bedrooms and more from the boardrooms. The latter are where the scandals grow like mushrooms in a dark basement.

While I disagree with dbsweden’s attempts to diminish the ramifications of Mr. Weiner’s horrid conduct, the misogynist aspect of it and his feeble attempts at a cover-up, the blogger does raise an interesting point in that we are being bombarded and infested with this scandal while distracted from other important economic, legislative and foreign policy issues of the day. They are buried in the 24 hour news cycle when they should get our undivided attention. Do I think he should resign? Yes. But it is up to Mr. Weiner’s constituents to decide whether he stays or goes. Not him or his party. He should also get help from a psychotherapist. We should place the blame for his actions squarely where it belongs — on him. It also wouldn’t hurt to note how women were and are disrespected throughout this entire process.

And we should get back to other critical issues facing this nation.

What say you?

No, Anthony Weiner has no one but himself to blame for the mess he is in. His long time friend (and for a brief period, girlfriend), Kirsten Powers, came out with a scathing post about Weiner on Wednesday, June 7th. She has been friends with him for years, and unknowingly carried his water on “Hannity” in defense of Weiner. She is not carrying it any more, as this post highlights:

[snip] Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn’t lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that “everything [would] be fine.” We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month “sexting” relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women…

[...]

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts. [snip] (Click here to read the rest, and believe me, it is well worth your time.)

Again, Powers’ post is well worth your time – there are some things in there to support her charge of misogyny, and she is right on the money.

Unlike Chris Matthews, whose sexist, boorish behavior have been on display for a number of years. You may recall that even Media Matters took him to task for his sexism toward Hillary Clinton, though his expression of such seems to have only scratched the surface:

[snip] One young conservative female guest who appeared several times on Matthews’ show told TheDC that bizarre comments toward women were part of his off air banter as well.

“During one appearance, during the commercial break, Matthews informed me he loves it when women wear baby doll dresses,” she said. “It’s his favorite thing to see women wear.”

[...]

Liberal watchdog groups such as Media Matters and the Daily Kos have hit Matthews hard for his poorly chosen, even misogynistic words toward liberal women.

Media Matters noted Matthews’ poor math in trying to figure out how many women governors there were in 2008.

“Where are the big-state women governors? Where are they? Name one. They don’t exist,” Matthews said of the potential for a future female presidential candidate.

Media Matters subsequently pointed out that in 2008 there were in fact many female governors with populations comparable to the big name former governor presidential candidates, such as Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.[snip]

Holy crappydoo. Seriously?? “Babydoll” clothes? Unaware that there are a number of women governors??

Yeah, this guy is a lunatic:

[snip] His emotional rants have become commonplace on “Hardball,” and made his show must-watch TV for the likes of Mediate, NewsBusters, Real Clear Politics and even The Daily Caller — all waiting with bated breath for Matthews to inevitably say something “insane.”

When asked by TheDC why he watches so religiously, Ian Schwartz, Real Clear Politics video editor, did not mince words.

“‘Hardball’ is a reminder that I am sane,” said Schwartz. “Chris Matthews is more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden and the ignorance of his sexism and bigotry makes the show entertaining to watch.”

“He’s a freak show” said another media reporter. [snip]

You got that right, for so, so many reasons.

But you know who one of his favorite targets is:

[snip] Sarah Palin is another of Matthews’ punching bags. He has called the former Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee “profoundly stupid,” “a dolt,” and an “empty head.”

“He’s a known sexist pig. It’s not misogyny based on political party,” Amy Siskind, president of the women’s advocacy group The New Agenda, wrote at TheDC. “No, Matthews has a familiar pattern: he purposefully strikes out at any woman who is rising in power.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest. I have just scratched the surface of this outstanding article.)

Matthews thinks Palin is “profoundly stupid” and a “dolt”? Wow. This is just yet another uninformed opinion put forth by this brain trust.

I will allow Gov. Palin herself to dispel the biased, sexist attack by Chris Matthews in this synopsis of her recent bus tour:

Just WHO is “profoundly stupid,” Mr. Matthews? I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Gov. Palin.

Oh, my – Sarah Palin really stepped in it this time, didn’t she? She completely bungled the history of Paul Revere while up North. Yes, this short little clip says it all:

What an idiot, right? I mean ALL the Lefty blogs and news channels are claiming so, from Think Progress above, to Mother Jones, to Chris Matthews (big surprise), to USA Today, and many news outlets in between. Yes, they are all laughing with glee at the ridiculous, preposterous account by Sarah Palin of Paul Revere’s ride.

Except – she’s right. Whoops.

I am sure all of these outlets are just RACING to correct the record. Ahahahaha – not. Of course they aren’t. It is far too much fun to attack Palin for being the biggest idiot this side of George Bush, so why would they bother?

What I have really found funny is when people point out Obama’s misspeaks, his minions are quick to defend him. Check out this comment from Mother Jones in response to someone’s mentioning the 57 (and counting) states comment by Obama:

Nishant Srivastava; Except Obama, at the time a rookie national campaigner, said “We’ve visited 57 states”, when he obviously meant stops in states at a press event he did as part of a campaign for President.

Palin has endured the heat of a prior political campaign, so one can reasonably argue that she should have more experience. [snip]

Uh huh. Except at that point, Obama had been on the campaign trail for months and months, and that was not the only stupid thing he said then, or now. And never mind that Palin had been riding around on a bus for hours and hours and hours – she couldn’t possibly be the least bit tired when she said what she did about Revere.

Which, as I noted above, turned out to be correct, as this historical document highlights:

[snip] I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms. He then orderd them to advance, & to lead me in front. When we got to the Road, they turned down towards Lexington. When we had got about one Mile, the Major Rode up to the officer that was leading me, & told him to give me to the Sergeant. As soon as he took me, the Major orderd him, if I attempted to run, or any body insulted them, to blow my brains out. We rode till we got near Lexington Meeting-house, when the Militia fired a Voley of Guns, which appeared to alarm them very much. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

So, tell me where she was wrong?

Like Palin or not, the issue here is one of hypocrisy. We saw it with Hillary Clinton when she exaggerated a story about a trip in Bosnia, one that was fraught with danger, which was, of course, omitted from the accounts.

Obama has misspoken PLENTY, but his misstatements are often underreported by the media or just plain ignored. I don’t recall ANY major news outlet going through his books the way they did Palin’s book. If ANYONE else had said in a speech so blatant a lie as he did describing how the March on Selma enabled his (glorious) birth into this world, though he was born at least FOUR YEARS BEFORE the March, they would have been treated like, well, like Sarah Palin was for what she said about Paul Revere. Though, again, she was accurate, and Obama was not.
At least Hillary Clinton’s claim about Bosnia had SOME truth to it – Obama was just a liar, and allowed to get away with it (then as now).

And they wonder why Palin doesn’t like to talk with MSM? Sheesh.

Bottom line, I don’t care if you love Palin, or think she is Demon Spawn, want her for president, or are horrified at the thought of it. What I DO care about is the media lambasting her for something she was actually correct about, when it fails repeatedly to acknowledge Obama’s foibles (or other prominent Democrats – Biden’s gaffes are now treated as routine), and to do so in such an incredibly juvenile manner. That is the purview of hacks and rags, not prominent news outlets.

My advice? Try checking your facts before you go on the attack, and grow the hell up already. Be a big enough person to admit you attacked her in error, and APOLOGIZE for it. There are legitimate reasons to question ANY politician in a rational manner. But the uproar over this alleged “gaffe” was far from reasonable, and far from adult. Issue a retraction, admit your mistake, and try and be a little less biased in your coverage. Just a thought.

Oh, and for all of those who jumped on this bandwagon just to attack Palin, this is for you:

UPDATE: Thank goodness I was sitting down when I saw the following article from the LA Times, “You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?” I know, right? I still almost fell over. Now, of course, despite pesky facts, the commenters are still raging on, attacking the messenger of this reality rather than being big enough people to say they were w-w-w-r-r-o-o-n-n-g-g-g-g, but who really expected them to have that much integrity? They continue to attack Palin relentlessly because, well, just BECAUSE, okay?!?! Here is the pertinent part of the article:

You may have heard recently something about that Sarah Palin telling a reporter that Paul Revere warned the British on his famous rousing revolutionary ride.

Now, that so many Americans have wallowed in their smug confirmation that Palin is an idiot unqualified for anything but repeating sixth-grade history, how far, wide and fast do you think the contradictory news will spread that the former governor of Alaska was indeed correct?

That the Republican non-candidate, in fact, knew more about the actual facts of Revere’s midnight ride than all those idiots unknowingly revealing their own ignorance by laughing at her faux faux pas? How secretly embarrassing this must be, to be forced to face that you’re dumber than the reputed dummy.

As it happens, though, such phenomena are regular occurrences in American politics, reminding consumers of news to be wary when some fresh story seems to fit contemporary assumptions so absolutely perfectly.

The well-known fable is Revere’s late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that….

…the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening’s events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution’s inevitable victory.

Palin knew this. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin’s latest mis-speak, which wasn’t.

Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Read the rest – there is some interesting information about someone I always assumed was an idiot for not being able to spell “potato” – turns out he was set up a bit. Who knew? Gore is included, too, for his “creating the internet” comment, though the reality of what he actually said was lost in the rush to (erroneous) judgment.

Anyway, pretty amazing that such a big time outlet actually did the right thing. I do believe we have witnessed a miracle!

Holy shit. Are you KIDDING me with this? Check out the “rationale” from the maker of this “Hero” figure:

Navy SEALs have become national heroes since news broke that they took down Osama bin Laden, so it’s fitting that the newest action figure from a Connecticut company is a fierce-looking President Barack Obama as a SEAL.

The minute Obama said late on the night of May 1 that the U.S. had found and killed bin Laden, Emil Vicale knew which his action figure company’s would make next — Rambama.

On Wednesday morning, Hero Builders released the Obama SEAL Team 6 action figure — a muscular President in fatigues armed with an M1-A4.

Vicale, who owns the custom action figure company in Oxford, said the speech was a pivotal moment in the Obama presidency.

It was also a parallel to the speech that inspired the company in the first place almost 10 years earlier.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Vicale listened to then-President George Bush’s bullhorn speech from Ground Zero and was inspired to create Hero Builders. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Never mind that Obama did not GIVE the order to take out bin Laden, and had to be yanked off the golf course by the adults in the White House, HE did nothing to get bin Laden. HE did not risk his life. HE likely doesn’t even know how to OPERATE a gun, which I think I can say without fear of contradiction given this:

Yeah, doesn’t sound to me like someone who would have an M-1 in his arms, does it to you? Much less someone I think it is safe to label a “milquetoast,” as someone did in the comments.

Okay – I am too busy being disgusted to write more. What is your reaction?