Saturday, 08 March 2008
GLENN BECK "OLBERMANNS" OLBERMANN
Payback is a female dog, if you get my drift. And
if anyone ever had some payback coming it is keith olbermann.
olbermann is a relentlessly negative attack dog who smears
people on a regular basis. Bill O'Reilly is the most frequent, and
most viciously set upon, target. But there are plenty of others.
One of them is Glenn Beck.
O'Reilly has never responded
to olbermann by name, no matter how vile his attacks have
become. Presumably this is because they both air from 8 -
9PM weekday nights, and O'Reilly creams olbermann with more than three times the viewership.
Why respond in kind and give this the appearance of an equal
battle, when the other guy, ratings-wise, is a little child tugging at your
But Glenn Beck has no such inhibitions.
So when olbermann dishonestly attacked him this week (dishonesty being
ongoing premise of olbermann's show), Beck struck back.
Here are the particulars, courtesy of Noel Sheppard writing for www.newsbusters.org:
Glenn Beck Bashes Olbermann's
Ties to Media Matters and Think Progress
frequently reported the deplorable connection between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann
and the Clinton front-organizations Media Matters and Think
On Friday, conservative radio host Glenn Beck
marvelously illustrated just how this liberal alliance works, and showed how a
few sentences transcribed by Olbermann's minions and taken out of context can
easily be used to completely misrepresent their meaning and what the speaker was
After being named one of "Countdown's" Worst
Persons in the World for comments he made on his CNN Headline News program
Tuesday, Beck deliciously explained how Olbermann, Media Matters, and Think
Progress worked together to intentionally distort his words (audio available here,
liberal website alert!):
GLENN BECK, HOST: You know what I am?
You know what I am?
DAN ANDROS, PRODUCER: He doesn't deserve this.
GLENN: I am a multiwinner, multitime winner of worst person in the
world. That's what I am, okay?
STU BURGUIERE, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER:
GLENN: And I think that's something to be proud of. I
have just been crowned yet again worst person in the world by Keith Olbermann.
STU: And something -- I mean, you need to take this seriously. He is a
GLENN: He's a journalist, you know.
STU: Yeah, he's
GLENN: He's a journalist. Media Matters I believe
types stuff right directly into his TelePrompTer.
STU: No, no, I
think this he have to copy and paste it.
GLENN: Do they really?
STU: If the connection is down, they do have to copy and paste it.
GLENN: Here's where -- watch this connection. This is a three-part
miniseries that you're going to so enjoy. Here is Keith Olbermann dubbing me
the worst person in the world. Go ahead.
KEITH: The bronze to Glenn
Beck asking his guest, John McCain's pro apocalypse Hagee say, you've got to
wake up, Barack Obama's making people cry and faint and everything else. There
are people, and they say this about Bill Clinton who believe that he might
even be the antichrist. Odds that Barack Obama is the antichrist? Why do you
ask, Glenn? Worried about somebody giving you competition?
GLENN: That's funny.
Oh, my God. How did he come up with doing the same joke you did? Oh, God,
GLENN: Hang on, hang on. First of all, let's just notice that
he was reading it. He didn't play audio from it. Now, why wouldn't he play
audio? He had to read it. "And they say, Glenn, you've got to wake up. Don't
you know that Barack Obama's making people pass out? So tell me, Pastor Hagee,
is he the -- what are the odds that he is the antichrist?" Notice? And notice
he also doesn't say Pastor Hagee's response. And notice also that he says that
Pastor Hagee is pro Armageddon. I think we all are, aren't we? I mean, bring
on the end of the world! Yeah!
All right. So why didn't he play the
audio? Maybe because, listen to the audio and tell me if this sounds like a
serious question to Pastor Hagee.
GLENN: Let me ask you --
because I get so much e-mail on this and I think a lot of people do and I've
only got a couple of seconds. They say, Glenn, you in the media, you've got to
wake up. Barack Obama's making people faint and cry and everything else and
he's drawing people in and there are people, and they said this about Bill
Clinton, that actually believe he might be the antichrist. Odds that Barack
Obama is the antichrist.
PASTOR HAGEE: No chance. He has a lot of
charisma. There's a media love affair with him right now. He is a very
forgivable political person.
Do you see what Olbermann did here? He completely
ignored the set-up to Beck's question. Take a close look at what was
conveniently missing from Olbermann's transcript of Beck's statements:
Let me ask you -- because I get so much
e-mail on this and I think a lot of people do and I've only got a couple of
seconds. They say, Glenn, you in the media...
As such, Beck was posing a question raised by
others, and, as can plainly be seen from the video below, doing it in a humorous
fashion which gave no credence whatsoever to the notion that Obama is the
anti-Christ. In fact, he was clearly belittling it as you can see
Not what Olbermann represented on Wednesday, was
it? Now, let's look at how Think Progress transcribed Beck's words in its
posting on Tuesday
Beck: Is Obama the Antichrist?
Today on his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck
asked Pastor John Hagee
whether Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the embodiment of evil:
There are people they say this about Bill
Clinton he might be the anti-Christ. Odds that Barack Obama is the
Here's how Media Matters reported it Wednesday:
As the blog Think Progress noted, Beck wrapped
up his interview with Hagee by asking him if Sen. Barack Obama might be the
Antichrist: "There are people -- and they said this about Bill Clinton -- that
actually believe he might be the Antichrist. Odds that Barack Obama is the
Antichrist?" Hagee responded: "No chance." Beck has previously said of Sen. Hillary
Clinton, "I think we may have found our Antichrist and our next
Interesting, yes? All three entities ignored
Let me ask you -- because I get so much
e-mail on this and I think a lot of people do and I've only got a couple of
seconds. They say, Glenn, you in the media...
Why do you think ALL THREE entities did that?
Well, Beck had the answer:
GLENN: Okay, notice that I'm laughing
all the way through it, if you could even see the audio, which, if he played
the audio he would have to play the video. If you could actually see the
video, you could see that I'm laughing as I say it, as I ask the question.
Well, here's the best part, because what picked this up originally was, I
don't even know, Think Progress. Think Progress, yes. Let's Think
Progress. Do you know Progressive has "Progress" in it? It must be good.
Think Progress is the first that picked this up on the blog. They're like,
Glenn Beck thinks that maybe Media Matters then picked up the story and put a
Glenn Beck think maybe and then they cut and pasted and put it in the
TelePrompTer for Keith Olbermann: Glenn Beck thinks maybe he's the worst
person in the world! Then Media Matters reported that Keith Olbermann
reported the story that Media Matters reported that Keith Olbermann should
report. So if they could just now get Media Matters to alert Think
Progress and so Think Progress could report that Media Matters reported that
Keith Olbermann reported what Media Matters reported that Think Progress
reported originally, it would be a feedback loop that would never end and
everything would be perfect in the world.
The reason, the reason
this is so unbelievably entertaining is because obviously the truth doesn't
matter, but even more is it is so very predictable. In fact, it's so
predictable, on what date, Stu?
STU: February 20th, Glenn.
GLENN: On February 20th, on this program I predicted this very thing
to happen. Listen to the audio.
Archive: By the way, this is all
going to be transcribed by Media Matters today as a completely dead serious
correct Glenn: one source directly tied to the Clintons. And nobody in the
mainstream media -- especially not the good folks at MSNBC -- seems to
GRAY: I know, I know.
GLENN: There are
going to be media alerts: Glenn Beck announces Obama is the antichrist.
You watch, it's going to be everywhere.
And it was. Well, it was on
three really credible sources. Think Progress, Media Matters, and Keith
Olbermann, which is weird because I say it's three sources when actually
it's really only one.
to say that I am enjoying this payback greatly. Let olbermann get
a taste of the bile he barfs
out every night. Right back in his face.
And, more enjoyably still, unlike olbermann's version, this is HONEST
bile. Beck isn't using distortion and dishonesty the way olbermann
Go Glenn go.
THE NEW YORK TIMES' "ENDORSEMENT" OF MCCAIN
As you probably know, the New York Times "endorsed" John McCain over a month
ago. The reason "endorsed" is in quotation marks is that, since the field
has been cleared and Mr. McCain is the presumptive nominee, the Times has done
nothing but attack and slime him.
Two weeks ago, for example, it ran the incredibly disgraceful and
journalistically unprofessional front page article suggesting an illicit affair
between McCain and a younger female lobbyist. There were no facts
presented to support this allegation, only the suspicions of two former McCain
campaign workers. But it was on the paper's front page nonetheless.
Since then, the Times has run several other stories about Mr.
McCain, all of them deprecatory in nature.
And just in case you think the paper's "we got him the nomination. now
we can nail him" attitude is restricted to the executives at Times headquarters,
please read the following article from www.littlegreenfootballs.com
which details an exchange between McCain and Elizabeth Bumiller, the Times
reporter who is covering his campaign:
Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:28:14 pm
Youll never see a more perfect example of the
medias left-wing bias than the opening paragraph of this Associated Press
article on John McCains exchange with New York Times reporter Elisabeth
Bumiller: McCain flashes temper at
NEW ORLEANS - Republican Sen. John McCain,
showing a flash of the temper he is known for, repeatedly cut off a reporter
Friday when asked whether he had spoken to Democratic Sen. John Kerry about
being his vice president in 2004. Everybody knows that I had a private
conversation. Everybody knows that, that I had a conversation, McCain told
the reporter. And you know it, too. No. You know it, too. No. You do know.
You do know.
Notice anything missing from that little account
of the exchange?
Was Bumiller standing there silently while this
was going on?
Noshe was doing her best to interrupt McCain. But
the AP thinks that only McCains side of this conversation is
John McCain may have a temper, and the media may
be trying their best to hurt him for it, but I actually like this about
McCain. Hes a human being, and hes willing and ready to fight back and show
scorn to those who deserve it.
Like New York Times reporters.
UPDATE at 3/7/08 8:58:00
And if you really want to see how distorted and
bizarre the mainstream media coverage of this incident is, watch the video:
Breitbart.tv: 'Why Are You So Angry?': McCain Gets Testy Over NYT
As you can see, littlegreenfootballs.com showed how biased both the Times and
Associated Press are regarding this one minute long non-event. Do yourself
a favor and watch the video. It's a classic.
Rush Limbaugh has warned Republicans about this for years. And whatever
else he is right or wrong about, he has this one dead on.
Limbaugh has said over and over again that "These people do not like you, even
if they pretend to. No matter how much deference they show you for a
time, the minute they think they can take you down, they will."
Has the New York Times proved him right, or what?
THE CORRUPT CLINTONS
Although it is still early, already there have been several memorable
lines from the 2008 presidental campaign. The most recent is Susan
Powers' characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a monster".
But the one that has stuck with me most came from Mitt Romney, when
talking about Ms. Clinton's husband:
"The thought of Bill Clinton in the White House for
four years with nothing to do scares me to death".
In this connection, it is worth reading today's lead editorial in the New
York Post. If you'll excuse a pun about one aspect of what Romney was
probably referring to, it "fleshes" out the kind of activity Mr. Clinton might
BILL'S MYSTERY MILLIONS
March 8, 2008 -- Another day, another reason for
Demo cratic primary voters to demand complete financial transparency from Bill
and Hillary Clinton.
And, it seems, another reason for the Clintons to
shudder at the prospect.
The Chicago Tribune reports that in 2004, the
ex-president spoke at the Manhattan launching party of a new Web-search company
partly backed by the Chinese government - in exchange for a donation of 200,000
shares of the Google-wannabe to his charitable foundation.
Two years later, with the company still in the
red, he somehow managed to unload the stock for $3.50 per share - well over the
mere cents it was judged to be worth - for $700,000 in total profit.
And that number is well above the $150,000
that Clinton typically commands for Manhattan speeches.
Nevertheless, he refuses to say who bought the
stock - or why.
One wonders: Why is Bill Clinton so often involved
in shady-looking deals?
True, there may not be any new revelations about
Arkansas cattle futures, or the White House travel office, or illegal Chinese
fund-raisers or . . . the list could go on (though Hillary's campaign wasn't
thrilled when Sen. Barack Obama
mentioned the scandals the other day).
But the Clintons remain the Clintons, so who
knows what might come to light as the campaign progresses?
Particularly regarding Bill's
foundation, whose major donors he refuses to reveal.
This is the same foundation, after all, that
received a whopping $131 million from Canadian mining mogul Frank Guistra
not long after he accompanied Clinton on a visit to the president of Kazakhstan,
who quickly awarded Guistra's company a lucrative mining contract.
And a scant two weeks ago, the two were together
at an A-list fundraiser in Toronto. "I love this guy," said Clinton.
New-found friends aside, influence-peddling is
unseemly for any former president - and downright scandalous for the husband of
a sitting US senator.
Can you imagine what kind of favors Bill's cronies
would expect if his wife becomes president?
Such concerns are well-founded.
For example, federal archivists at the Clinton
Presidential Library just blocked the release of hundreds of pages of White
House documents related to the 140 pardons Bill granted on his last day in
office - including that of fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife just
happened to be a major Clinton fund-raiser.
What might be hidden there?
There's only one thing for the Clintons to do at
this point - and that's provide full financial disclosure, immediately.
Bill and Hillary have gamely promised that they'll
release their tax returns on April 15 (even though Barack and Michelle Obama
released theirs last year).
That's a start, if it actually happens.
Bill, meanwhile, needs to disclose all major
donors to his charitable foundation and presidential library - and not just, as
he promises, those who give after Hillary becomes president.
The country deserves to know who has paid
(is paying?) for the Clintons' ear.
And it should go without saying that such
information is especially relevant to Democratic primary
Until recently, both Clintons have enjoyed one of the most amazing free
rides in US media history. No matter how many scandals, or how
big they have been, mainstream media have always found a rationale for
letting them off the hook.
Whether money scandals (usually the case with Hill and Bill) or pardons or
whatever else, it never mattered. The Clintons didn't do anything wrong,
they were just being picked on by those mean rightwing
But now, in Barack Obama, the mainstream media have someone even more to
their political tastes than the Clintons, so we are actually seeing a little
real coverage of their past and present activities. Not a lot, but at
least some. And today's Post gives us the latest chapter (approximately
Bill Clinton with four years in the White House and nothing to do?