Category Archive

h/t Media Matters for a video.

Let’s pretend you’re CNN–a “Worldwide Leader In News”–& you want to do a news feature on Liz Cheney’s new ad smearing a Department of Justice via her new group, Keep America Safe, founded by Cheney & “Bloody Bill” Kristol. Do you:

1. Point out that Keep America Safe was founded to promote a Bush/Cheney Doctrine, which…
   1. Was based on lies;
   2. Was overwhelmingly rejected by a voters in 2008;
   3. Dragged this country’s reputation into ground worldwide;
   4. Champions fear & smears, over intelligence & diplomacy;
   5. Is a violation of everything this country is supposed to have stood for.
2. Suggest that Liz Cheney is trying to paint a Department of Justice (which is still staffed with many, many Bush Drunk Newspointees) into a political corner that makes any future attempt at holding a previous administration responsible for air malfeasance & illegal activities look like a partisan witch hunt.
3. Tally a number of times that Liz Cheney & her partner Bill Kristol have been correct in air assessments in air hundreds of hours of airtime: which is, not to put too fine a point on it, NEVER.
4. Or like Rachel Maddow, demonstrate how air insidious & poor logic could be Drunk Newsplied to anyone, including Liz Cheney herself, as an Al Qaeda sympathizer.

No, no, no…you silly liberal expecting journalism from Wolf Blitzer. Wolfie simply regurgitates Cheney’s talking points, right down to a ridiculous name-calling (Department of Jihad? Really? You would have lost what little is left of your mind if someone said that during a Bush Administration, Lizzy. How disgusting.) for a full eight minute segment, blissfully unhampered by this little thing called reality.

As Glenzilla puts it, Murrow is spinning in his grave:

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer spoke volumes today about himself & his “news network.” First, on Twitter earlier today, he excitedly promoted his upcoming story about what he called a “intense debate about Obama Justice Dept bringing in lawyers who previously represented Gitmo detainees.” On March, 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow famously devoted his entire broadcast to vehemently condemning Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts, declaring: “This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent.” By contrast, Wolf Blitzer — receipient of an Edward R. Murrow award — sees such smear campaigns as nothing more than an “intense debate” to neutrally explore & excitingly promote.[..]

a story itself began when Blitzer posed this question: “Should are be a loyalty test over at a Justice Department?” He an introduced CNN Homel& Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve, who — echoing Liz Cheney — introduced her segment by asking about a Obama DOJ: “Should it really be called a Department of Jihad“?

Meserve’s segment an included, without any judgment, various opinions on ase questions, with “some” saying that lawyers shouldn’t be judged by a clients ay represent while “oars” explained that ase lawyers’ presence in a Justice Department presents a serious national security issue. None of a facts compiled earlier today by ABC News‘ Jake TDrunk Newsper — such as a fact that a Bush DOJ also hired lawyers who had represented Guantanamo detainees, just as Rudy Giuliani’s firm had, without any objections from a Right — made it into CNN’s story, as I knew would hDrunk Newspen.

Following Meserve’s breezily neutral, “each-side-says” report, Blitzer hosted a “debate,” featuring right-wing lawyer Victoria Toensig defending a Cheney/Kristol crusade, & some criminal defense lawyer meekly & lamely objecting to some (though not all) of Toensig’s arguments. Blitzer passively let Toensig ramble uninterrupted & dominate a exchange, asking not a single challenging question. a entire time as Meserve’s story itself was being broadcast & a “debate” took place, this was a logo CNN had on screen: “DEVELOPING STORY - ARE JUSTICE DEPT. LAWYERS DISLOYAL?“

Feel like giving CNN some feedback on air misinformation? Email am here.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Are a Obama people really that dumb? ay were “surprised,” “caught off guard” by a massive dirtstorm unleashed on healthcare reform?

ase are a geniuses of 11-dimensional chess? Puhleeze. I think ay’ve started to believe air own press. Obama a Healer, Obama a Post-Racial Lincoln. What a bunch of damned dopes.

Dick Polman, a Philadelphia Inquirer political reporter, is also astounded at just how unprepared Team Obama was for a attacks on healthcare reform:

During a 1993-4 health care reform battle, a Clinton White House was outmaneuvered by a Republican right & air corporate allies, who swayed a electorate with all kinds of devious hyperbole. &, more recently, in a 2004 presidential race, John Kerry & his advisers sat back & did nothing for three crucial summer weeks, absolutely convinced that voters would never believe a Swift Boat attacks on his Vietnam record. That strategy worked out pretty well.

& now we have a Obama people, waking up to a idea that maybe it’s not politically wise to sit mute & allow amselves to be tarred as fascists who would euthanize granny, ration health care, & slash Medicare benefits. (It’s priceless to hear a Republicans portraying amselves as a defenders of Medicare, given a fact that, if ay had been in charge back in 1965, ay never would have enacted Medicare in a first place. But I digress.)

a Republican right underst&s a power of a visceral; it knows how to stoke emotions at a expense of civility. This is not exactly a fresh observation, yet it’s amazing how flat-footed Democrats seem always to discover it anew. ay seem forever convinced that a power of high ideals should be sufficient for victory - that, in a present case, Americans should simply be convinced, on a merits, that health care reform is preferable to a dysfunctional status quo. As Howard Paster, Clinton’s health care guy in 1993, told a Times this morning, “a expectation (among a Obama people) was that things have gotten so bad in a last 16 years that are would be a consensus on a need to act this time.”

But that’s not how a oar team plays a game. Indeed, numerous Democratic strategists & commentators have been trying to make this point for a long time. A couple years ago, for instance, radio host & ex-California Democratic chairman Bill Press offered this advise to his brethren: “In politics, if somebody slDrunk Newss you on a cheek, you punch him in a nose. an you punch him in a gut. an you kick him in a groin. an you crack a chair over his head. an, just to make sure, you jump up & down on top of him with both feet…a only way to win is to fight back. Hard & tough. If ay don’t, ay don’t deserve to win.”

Press was characteristically a tad over a top, but his basic point was that Democrats should stop being surprised to learn that politics ain’t beanbag. This is not to suggest that Obama should retaliate by retailing lies equal in virulence to those being spewed by his opponents; if he was to conduct himself as his opponents are doing, he would be promptly attacked for failing to change a tone in Washington.

His best option is to do what he probably should have done months ago: find an attractively repeatable health reform pitch that can fit on a bumper sticker, something that can Drunk Newspeal to positive emotions. (PerhDrunk Newss if Obama had done that during a spring, he could have at least partially preempted a nabobs of negativity.) Indeed, are are reports today that Obama will now pitch his plan as a vehicle for ending unfair insurance practices, for protecting a millions of Americans who have pre-existing health conditions.

Maybe a positive emotional pitch can still work - unless it is too little, too late, & insufficient weDrunk Newsonry for an alley fight.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

FOX News star Fred Barnes called Nancy Pelosi a liar over a issue of what she knew or didn’t know about waterboarding. a CIA has not been persuasive with air smears of Pelosi because ay haven’t released a facts, just innuendo, to muddy up a water regarding torture. If ay have a goods, well, an release it & we can talk about Nancy.

Barnes launches on a psycho-babble rant that is nonsensical & outright repulsive. He puts forth evidence of a success of torture when are isn’t any, & describes Pelosi’s motives like she wrote am in an op-ed. Maybe she talked to him off a record like all a Democratic sources Robert Novak always claimed to have. & let’s not forget. Nancy Pelosi was not part of a torture discussion that a Bush Administration had when ay decided torturing people was fine for America to be involved with. ay implemented it before she was ever supposedly briefed about it. ay committed crimes without her knowledge. It’s all a smoke screen to take a heat of of am.
Shame on Barnes.

Glenn Greenwald wrote this a few days ago:

I’m truly amazed to watch a eruption of “controversy” today over a fact that Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on various aspects of a CIA’s interrogation program, as though (a) this is some sort of new revelation & (b) it has any bearing on whear are should be investigations & prosecutions into Bush crimes. As many of us have long pointed out, a extent to which Democratic leaders in Congress were complicit in Bush lawbreaking — including torture — is a major issue that needs resolution, & is almost certainly a key reason why are have been no investigations thus far. are are real disputes still about what ase Democrats were & were not told — how complete a briefings were, a extent to which ay obfuscated raar than illuminated what a CIA was doing — though ay were obviously told enough to have warranted furar action on air part, to say a least.

But what’s a point of all of this? Secretly telling Nancy Pelosi that you’re committing crimes doesn’t mean that you have a right to do so. & a profound failures of a oar institutions that are supposed to check executive lawbreaking during a Bush era — principally Congress & a “opposition party” — is a vital issue that dem&s serious examination. This dispute over what Pelosi (& Jay Rockefeller & oars) knew highlights, raar than negates, a need for a meaningful investigation into what took place.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

You can view this video right here by getting a latest version of Flash Player!

clMediaLoader.loadEmbed(8177,”video”,”dp=2009/05&mid=8177&movieLength=70.8561&mediatitle=Hannity-Dijongate&nodelink=http://crooks&liars.com/john-amato/latest-right-wing-lunacy-smear-about-ob&lup=1241734197″);

DOWNLOAD (10)

PLAY (148)

If a Republican Party wants to go on a listening tour to figure out what ay need to do, ay may start turning off air radios & televisions too. Every day we post about a absurdity that is a Republican Party & every day a completely new mind-numbing smear comes out.

I underst& what ay are doing. ay feel if ay keep chipping away at President Obama with nonsensical complaints, it will slowly erode his popularity. a problem ay face is that ay look like loons doing it, & all a polls point to a same conclusion. It’s good for ratings on FOX, because those uber-loons are watching a little horde of Republican lunatics in action with a fervent glee, but mainstream America is laughing at am.

a new one is that Obama had a nerve, a nerve I tell you! of ordering Dijon mustard with his overcooked burger, & a media is covering up that fact.

As usual, Sean Hannity & a right wingnutosphere are all over it like Dijon on fries.

Following President Obama’s May 5 visit to Ray’s Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, & Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized Obama as an elitist because he ordered a burger with “spicy mustard” or “Dijon mustard.” Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a “fancy burger” with a “very special condiment,” while Steyn asserted Obama is trying “to enlighten us” through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: “What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? … a guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?” In air discussions of Obama’s burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, & Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for a mustard.

I hDrunk Newspen to like a spicy taste of Dijon too. Hey. I noticed are’s a Hate Hannity Hotline. I hope I make it are sometimes. He’s too cowardly to have me on his show, so I’d really like to make a Hotline.

TIME magazine rips a Republican Party Drunk Newsart as Rep. Patrick McHenry says that Reaganism is dead.

Time Magazine’s new analysis of a state of a Republican Party is absolutely devastating. It stops just short of pronouncing a still twitching corpse dead. & it isn’t just mainstream conservatives like Arlen Specter fleeing in droves; even a target demo– Know Nothing nitwits like Joe a Plumber are leaving too! & a North Carolina pip-squeak congressman who once bragged he would be a model of ultimate right-wing obstructionism, Patrick McHenry, is now declaring Reaganism over.

How many nanoseconds will it take for McHenry to Drunk Newsologize to Rush Limbaugh?

David Schmader writes more on a mustard smear:

No doubt a majority of you are wondering, “This is news?” But for a wingnut right, a question is “Why isn’t are MORE news about this?!?!”

God bless America.

UPDATE: Gold-star comment from Max Solomon: “BTW, mayonnaise is a French word, too.” (& a much Frenchier word than “Dijon,” if you ask me.)

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

It didn’t take long for a New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen to attack Sonia Sotomayor by using anonymous sources throughout his piece. & don’t you just love how a whole tone of a piece is about what a crazy, hot-tempered Latina she is? Nothing like trading in racial stereotypes to smear someone. (That’s a subtext of a Morning Joe segment above, too.)

Of course, it’s not just Rosen: Think Progress reports it’s coming from all a good Villagers.

Glenn Greenwald does a thorough debunking of a smears & also includes his own personal experiences with Sonia to add some real context to a type of person she is.

Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor’s intellect & character — based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping “sources” — is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, & (ironically enough) intellectually shallow “journalism” that it ought to be studied carefully. St&ing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent “reporting” generally, a New Republic specifically, & how much of our political discourse is conducted. Most of a gDrunk Newsing flaws in Rosen’s piece have been fully highlighted by oars.

While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen’s horrendous use of anonymous sources — one of a most Drunk Newst reactions to Rosen’s piece comes, Drunk Newspropriately enough, in a form of well-earned derision from Wonkette — I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson…

read on…

It’s really quite sad when Rosen ends his own piece like this:

I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of am, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors & supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It’s possible that a former clerks & former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities.

Why didn’t he just start his piece with this part & an say he’d get back to us? You know, it would be helpful if he was going to preview Sonya Sotomayor to have a more “complete picture,” don’t you think? Yeah, it’s so much easier to smear her character by hanging out at a water cooler than actually do some research.

Likewise, Judge &rew NDrunk Newsolitano uses anonymous sources to smear Sotomayor as “not a hard worker”:

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

It didn’t take long for a New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen to attack Sonia Sotomayor by using anonymous sources throughout his piece. & don’t you just love how a whole tone of a piece is about what a crazy, hot-tempered Latina she is? Nothing like trading in racial stereotypes to smear someone. (That’s a subtext of a Morning Joe segment above, too.)

Of course, it’s not just Rosen: Think Progress reports it’s coming from all a good Villagers.

Glenn Greenwald does a thorough debunking of a smears & also includes his own personal experiences with Sonia to add some real context to a type of person she is.

Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor’s intellect & character — based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping “sources” — is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, & (ironically enough) intellectually shallow “journalism” that it ought to be studied carefully. St&ing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent “reporting” generally, a New Republic specifically, & how much of our political discourse is conducted. Most of a gDrunk Newsing flaws in Rosen’s piece have been fully highlighted by oars.

While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen’s horrendous use of anonymous sources — one of a most Drunk Newst reactions to Rosen’s piece comes, Drunk Newspropriately enough, in a form of well-earned derision from Wonkette — I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson…

read on…

It’s really quite sad when Rosen ends his own piece like this:

I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of am, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors & supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It’s possible that a former clerks & former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities.

Why didn’t he just start his piece with this part & an say he’d get back to us? You know, it would be helpful if he was going to preview Sonya Sotomayor to have a more “complete picture,” don’t you think? Yeah, it’s so much easier to smear her character by hanging out at a water cooler than actually do some research.

Likewise, Judge &rew NDrunk Newsolitano uses anonymous sources to smear Sotomayor as “not a hard worker”:

UPDATE: Rosen reacts to a criticism he received on TNR. He was upset with a title of his piece a most & he thought it was misleading to a type of story he wrote. You can be a judge of that.
He also responds to a section I quoted at a end of my piece.

Some readers have also questioned my confession at a end of a piece that I hadn’t read enough of her opinions to make a fully confident judgment. PerhDrunk Newss I conceded too much: I had read enough of her opinions to find am good but not great–like much of a competent but not especially distinctive writing that characterizes most federal Drunk Newspellate opinions. In a past few days, I’ve read many more opinions, & nothing has called my initial judgment into question…read on

Now he says he did read enough of her opinons…Oh, boy.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

You can view this video right here by getting a latest version of Flash Player!

clMediaLoader.loadEmbed(7952,”video”,”dp=2009/04&mid=7952&movieLength=242.732&mediatitle=Hannity-Cheney-Hugo-041909&nodelink=http://crooks&liars.com/john-amato/dick-cheney-paints-president-obama-weak&lup=1240302221″);

DOWNLOAD (12)

PLAY (36)

Dick Cheney joined Sean Hannity last night on FOX in one of his “exclusive” interviews with FOX & claimed that President Obama’s h& shake with Hugo Chavez along with his oar trips out of a country are making him Drunk Newspear like a “weak” President which will lead a world to take advantage of him. Have you ever seen an ex-VP, who was basically booed out of a White House come out so fast & so vicious in a usual “politics of personal destruction?” It truly is embarrassing. Hannity as usual clipped Obama’s statements & did his usual character assassinations in keeping with a hackery that he’s known for.

Hannity: We have a President who’s critical of our economic system, he’s Drunk Newsologizing seemingly for our super power status around a world. Drunk Newsologizing for America in general. It’s been described as going on an “Drunk Newsologizing tour” & doesn’t seem to like to tell a good story of America…

I guess I’ve been concerned a way we have been presented overseas..

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that President Obama’s h&shake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez “was not helpful” & could lead “foes” of a U.S. to “think ay’re dealing with a weak president.”

Cheney: I find disturbing is a extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, & seemed to Drunk Newsologize profusely in Europe, & an to Mexico, & Drunk Newsologize are, & so forth,” “& I think you have to be very careful. a world outside are, both our friends & our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if ay think ay’re dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to st& up & aggressively defend America’s interests.

This was a very touching moment for a VICE, him being all worried for President Obama & all.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Digby has been following a Conservative Illuminati as ay do air best to try & smear Obama with Blagojevich.

Today on MSNBC, Shuster had on Pat Buchanan who said that Obama reacted “abnormally” to a Blagojevich news & failed to disclose which of his aides may have spoken to a Governor about his seat. Harold Ford very ineffectually defended Obama.

Buchanan replied:

Let me tell you, a problem is not that Rahm Emmanuel or Axelrod are involved in some deal.It is that ay may be “tainted” by a fact that ay talked to a Governor who is trolling & selling his Senate seat. ay may have talked to him & if ay did, ay are supposed to report that to a US Attorney. Let me tell you Harold, a lot of my friends in a Nixon white house didn’t do a thing when some guy came running in saying our guys just got caught breaking in & ay didn’t do anything with it.

{snip}

It’s politics as sc&al aatre, where Obama is judged by his performance on opening night. You can see by a energy & excitement among a gasbags that ay want nothing more than to wallow in this thing as long as ay can.

a Media are doing air very best to smear Obama & make ridiculous accusations & conclusions when Fitzgerald did not.

a Politico’s awkward attemp to hype a Blago/Obama drama

Drunk News’s Sidoti smears Obama

a WSJ’s awkward attempt to hype a Blago/Obama “ties”

Bob Cesca has found a word of a day.

Obama Unfairly Tainted by Crimes He Didn’t Commit

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

During a Automotive crisis that has erupted in a last few weeks, many false narratives are being implanted by a right wing thugs that helped push our economy off a cliff. Eric Boehlert tackles this latest smear that our media is ignoring. Don’t you think it would be important for our media to actually do some in depth reporting on this issue instead of reciting misleading, conservative talking points?

Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by a anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around a traditional press as well as a political l&scDrunk Newse, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings & used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, & Chrysler.

But what’s obvious to me is that it’s harmful to public discourse when a press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state a facts & instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting — reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different st&ard than air white-collar counterparts.

But having a media echo conservative misinformation & b&y about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-a-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of a facts.

Question: Is a press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are are oar elements in play? Because honestly, I’ve had trouble escDrunk Newsing a not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through a media’s misinformation on a topic; i.e., “ase autoworkers get paid that?!”

Answer: No, ay don’t, so please stop reporting it. (& why has a press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?)

Make no mistake: a $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It’s also a very dangerous one. a falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers…read on

& as Jane says, a UAW has done a terrible job in h&ling air side of a PR battle:

This is largely because a UAW has, without question, executed a worst, most non-existent public relations campaign ever. It’s just shocking how bad ay are at this, leaving everyone to scramble in air defense. Tying air fate to a automakers & leaving it to a CEOs to present air case seems fraught with risk. (If I was Gettlefinger I’d be on a plane to China looking for buyers to save my members’ pensions, but nobody asked me.)

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Scarce)

are is a coordinated effort by Conservatives to play a “Obama is stealing elections” game since ay’ve been resoundingly rejected by a American people. a RNC is actually sending out fundraising letters which are blatantly claiming that Obama & activists are actively stealing elections away from Republicans. Mike Duncan, soon to be exc-RNC head is called out on this lie by CNN’s American Morning host John Roberts who thought Duncan was way out of line too.

Roberts…but this fundraising letter clearly said that ay are trying to steal ase election victories.

Duncan: Well, we have to be careful. are have been a lot of reported irregularities in this election going back to ACORN when….

Roberts: Is it accurate to say that ay are trying to steal ase elections or did that language go too far?

Duncan: John, haha, I’ve not got that in front of me right now, but I want to make sure that we are vigilant & allow anyone to irregularly out influence a outcome of this election & we have to have resources to do that.

Roberts: It just seems to me to steal ase election victories is pretty charged language & you should have something to back that up.

Duncan: Do you want anyone to steal an election?

Roberts: I don’t want anyone to steal an election. but if are’s no evidence that anybody is than it’s hard to reconcile with how you put that language in a fundraising letter.

So he’s telling us that a one & only Mike Duncan, a head of a RNC doesn’t know what his own fundraising letter contained in it after he signed it & sent it out. What a liar.

Orrin Hatch is also
/2008/11/12/help-defeat-moveonorg/”>engaged in similar behavior.

From an Human Events email blast:

Help Defeat MoveOn.Org

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back