RELATED: Susan G. Komen Apologizes, Restores Planned Parenthood Funding

First up, lets take a look at the historically left-leaning Huffington Post:

Ok, I’ve got to give credit to this one. Not only did they boil an incredibly divisive issue down to two words, one of them’s a pun. Mad props, yo.

I doubt things were as cheerful over at NewsBusters…

Yeah, and I bet they then used that toothpick to abort more babies! Seriously, the scent of sour grapes here is so strong it smells like fine wine.

Anyway, this is a women’s issue in every way so I bet the ladies of Jezebel have quite a bit to say:

And quite a bit of photoshopping. I don’t know, “Disgrace for the Cure” is fun, but Huffington Post is still winning the pun game.

However, the absolute, gold winner of the day, the most ridiculous headline we could possibly find on this story, the pinnacle of partisan pontification came from the good folks at Breitbart.tv:

Wow. Just wow.

Assessing the 2012 election, Cooper asked Maher, “You think no matter who the Republican candidates are, you think Obama’s going to win?”

“Oh, definitely,” Maher replied. “I think it’s — my money is still on Mitt Romney. And I think he’s going to get the nomination, and then I think obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife, yes, I do.”

Cooper reacted, disappointingly, with a dumbfounded laugh. “Geez. A runaway sister wife? I haven’t heard a FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) punch line in quite awhile.”

Maher is known for being a provocateur, which he seems to think gives him an unlimited supply of mulligans, but this is just the latest in a string of over-the-line remarks, many of them having to do with women. This one is particularly scummy, and like so many of his misfires, devoid of even dark humor.

Also disturbing, to a lesser degree, was the reaction of the conservative blogs that I first saw this clip on, The Blaze and media watchdog Newsbusters. Both were properly outraged, but neither mentioned violence against women. The source of their outrage? Here’s Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard, blockquoting The Blaze‘s Billy Hallowell:

Not catching the reference, I Googled “runaway sister wife” and found that Billy Hallowell over at the Blaze had written about this earlier:

[T]here’s a popular television show on TLC called “Sister Wives.” The program, which documents a polygamous family’s lifestyle, is controversial to say the least. Maher’s mention, which is particularly striking considering that polygamy is forbidden by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (in fact, the practice would cost one his or her membership in the church), seemed to be a dig at Romney’s faith.

At the very least.

Yes, it’s outrageous because it’s a shot at Romney’s Mormonism. It could be worse. Who knows what they would have said if Maher had used “beat him like a bowl of egg whites,” instead.

Here’s the clip, from CNN:

Actor Don Cheadle, who has managed to help bring us both the heartbreaking Hotel Rwanda and the perplexing Hotel for Dogs, is currently in such a situation. In an interview with Jet magazine, Cheadle, who has a new TV show coming out soon, shared that he believes President Barack Obama “inherited an impossible situation. I wish he had not been so much of a consensus-seeker. I just wanted to see a more ‘gangsta’ president.”

He later took to Twitter to explain his comments. Here’s an excerpt from what Cheadle shared:

I realize that when speaking to reporters who are looking for the juiciest comments to print, a word like gangster in connection with a black president uttered by a black celebrity can almost be too much to resist. I also realize that when you do an interview you are likely to at least have your comments reduced and constructed to fit into a required space and never do you have say over the final edit. I say this not in defense but to offer some perspective. I believe I used the word gangster and I meant it. But I wasn’t talking about pants sagging and forties and “hoes” or any of that other nonsense and I find it hard to believe that that is what some people thought I was saying. I was talking about wish fulfillment; my own and my desire to witness something more than I had.

RELATED: Matt Damon Would Have Preferred ‘A One-Term President With Balls’

But the actor’s attempt to offer some context and perspective to a provocative word choice brought with it another problematic phrase:

I am a father, a “husband”, an actor and a citizen of this country and planet who flippantly expressed on a press tour, a desire to see our president riding roughshod over his adversaries to get the job done for the least represented amongst us. I still want that. I still want that with full knowledge that it might be an uphill fight that ultimately proves impossible given the hostile impasse our president faces. I still have a fevered dream of the POTUS smacking up John Boehner in a public forum in middle America and making him defend support of tax cuts for the super rich.

“I kinda want a gangster president,” he continued. “I was about to write that in the future I would chose my words more carefully but I’m sure I won’t. Besides,” he added. “I think the debate is more enriching.”

NewsBusters weighed in to note that, in his Twitter missive (Twissive?), Cheadle “concluded with violent thoughts, and then peace” upon writing that “I’m glad he’s at the wheel and not me – I woulda swung at somebody by now. I wish you all peace in the New Year and let’s keep on keeping on.”

RELATED: Elizabeth Hasselbeck Calls Sarah Palin’s Crosshairs Ad ‘Despicable’

Given the impassioned debate surrounding the sometimes violence-tinged rhetoric or outright bloodthirsty and disturbing diatribes expressed by some in the public sphere in the wake of last year’s shooting in Arizona, Cheadle’s come at an interesting, if not volatile, time in our national discussion.

But, much more importantly: Who will be the next Ocean’s Eleven through 117 castmember to let us know all about his political beliefs? (My money is on Casey Affleck.)

h/t NewsBusters and Twitter

First Lady Obama had visited a NASCAR event to begin the race, and was received with boos by a crowd that seemed to disagree with… well, as it was a crowd, it was entirely unclear what their particular grievances were. Many in the media were quick to speculate, however. Rush Limbaugh blamed Obama’s “uppity-ism” in enjoying arugula and being fat. The luminaries at Big Government tried to tie those offended with the booing to the Occupy Wall Street protester who defecated on a police car. Newsbusters took offense at the idea that it was “unclear” what the crowd was booing for. Not all the response was confused and angry at those who would consider the booing of a First Lady at a non-political event offensive and improper: Red Eye’s Andy Levy, a professed NASCAR fan, called out the booers in a segment on his program Monday night. Media Matters weighed in as well, writing four posts on the matter but focusing on Limbaugh rather than the incident itself.

With a near-overnight turnaround between this story and The Roots’ (and Jimmy Fallon‘s) regrettable display on Monday night, those who would expect the media sources excusing the Obama incident to defend Rep. Bachmann vehemently were, to some extent, subdued in their defense. Big Hollywood responded calling the incident “vile.” Newsbusters demanded the National Organization for Women stand up and defend Rep. Bachmann– a demand notably absent from their analysis of the Obama affair. Greta Van Susteren, who had Rep. Bachmann on her program the same night as Fallon, did not issue a statement herself, but lauded the statement of Rep. Nita Lowey defending her colleague. The most damning attacks on Fallon came from Glenn Beck, who took the fight personally to Fallon by calling him a “despicable human being” for his participation in the matter. While Media Matters has yet to cover any of the story, Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert did call the incident “not cool” on his Twitter account.

NEXT PAGE: Why Michelle Obama and Michele Bachmann Don’t Spark More Outrage

NEWSBUSTERS: Alright, so a typical lineup when the program opens in the morning could be you with Mika on your right who’s extremely liberal, correct?

SCARBOROUGH: Mika is liberal in some areas, she’s also conservative in areas that would surprise you on social issues. She’s pro-Life and pro-guns.

NEWSBUSTERS: But you consider her to be liberal.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.

Scarborough also revealed Willie Geist was an independent. “I think he’s dead in the center,” Scarborough disclosed. “I think his time in Tennessee in college moderated his views. Again, I don’t really know. I work with the guy every day, and I can tell you when people start spewing Democratic lines, he rolls his eyes. But when people on the far-right come and spew conservative lines, he rolls his eyes as well. I think he’s like a lot of young voters. I think he’s independent.”

When questioned by the Huffington Post about Scarborough’s revelation about her political stances, Brzezinski demurred. “I stay away — my opinions on those two issues are admittedly convoluted. That’s why I would never run for office.”

Listen to the interview between Sheppard and Scarborough below:

(h/t HuffPo)

From Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard:

An Occupy Portland participant asked Moore if the richest 400 people in the country could “give back” $1 million each. The hypocritical flimmaker repeated the question saying it was a good idea.

A reporter for the Oregon based website Daylight Disinfectant shouted out, “How about a million of your 50 million?”

Moore ignored this and instead continued speaking to the crowd.

After Moore finished his speech, the reporter and his cameraman followed the schlockumentarian asking versions of the same question.

“Aren’t you part of the one percent?”

When Moore still ignored him, the reporter said, “$50 million Michael Moore. Here he comes.”

Despite this, crowd members could be heard shouting, “Michael, we love you.”

The reporter then asked, “Hey Michael, you flying the corporate jet back? Huh, your own private jet?”

If you watch the clip, though, it’s pretty clear Moore likely didn’t hear the first question, and after that, the guy was basically just heckling him. Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment doesn’t require you to speak to someone who’s haranguing you.

The Daylight Disinfectant blogger (“What the Liberal Media of the Willamette won’t tell you about happenings in The People’s Republic of Portlandia”) says on his YouTube page that an Occupy Portland “media representative” blocked his shot, although by that time, Moore was already just a dot on the horizon, and he also says he was “shoved in the stomach.”

Here’s the clip, via YouTube:

When I first saw the clip, I was all ready to get on the guy’s case for doing it all wrong, for venting his frustration at Moore instead of actually trying to get him to engage. Then I remembered this scene, in which BP villain Tony Hayward fled a press conference, trailed by a crush of reporters, refusing to answer questions. Hayward’s silence wasn’t really surprising, but the palpable frustration of the press was compelling, capped off by a zinger by ABC News’ Jake Tapper.

It’s likely that no matter how the Daylight Disinfectant blogger phrased his question, he wasn’t going to get an answer from Moore, and when that became clear, he got in some shots at Moore. He ended up with a reasonably compelling piece of video that superficially resembles many clips from Moore’s films, which often involve high-profile people ducking him.

The thread that he’s pulling on, though, is silly on several levels. There are lots of mega-bucks celebrities who have shown up to support the Occupy protests, and recent polls show that most millionaires support raising taxes on millionaires. You can, apparently, be rich and believe in fairness, simultaneously. Moore can, and does, also argue that he takes his earnings and puts them back into making more films. His wealth, then, is a tool to combat wealth inequality.

This blogger would have been much better served asking Moore about his use of non-union workers on his Capitalism: A Love Story, an issue that might have even resonated with the crowd.

In Fast and Furious, conservatives see a scandal that could take down the entire Obama administration, while liberals see a botched law enforcement operation that Congressional Republicans are overselling with a legislative hearing fishing trip. The mainstream media, meanwhile, has been covering the story, and following it to see where it goes, and in some cases, leading the charge.

It is in that context that you should evaluate conservative criticism of ABC News’ decision not to include the President’s response to Tapper’s Fast and Furious question in its broadcasts. Here’s a transcript of the exchange, from ABC News’ Nightline:

Tapper: “Just to change the subject from the economy, the ‘Fast and Furious’ controversy. Aside from some of the more wild charges out there, this is a big scandal. The Justice Department, the ATF was moving guns and some of them were tied to crime scenes. what was your response when you first heard about it?”

Obama: “Well I heard about it from the news reports. This is not something we were aware of in the White House and the Attorney General it turns out wasn’t aware of either. Obviously Eric Holder has launched a full investigation of this, it is not acceptable for us to allow guns to go into Mexico. Our whole goal has been to interdict aggressively in the flow of weapons and cash flowing south into Mexico because the Mexican president, President Calderon, has done a heroic job of trying to take on these transnational drug cartels. So this investigation will be complete, people who have screwed up will be held accountable but our overarching goal consistently has been to say we’ve got a responsibility not only to stop drugs from flowing north, we’ve also got a responsibility to make sure we are not helping to either arm or finance these drug cartels in Mexico. So it’s very upsetting to me to think that somebody showed such bad judgment that they would allow something like that to happen and we will find out who and what happened in this situation and make sure it gets corrected.”

Newsbusters‘ Scott Whitlock took exception to the omission (in the headline, NB says ABC “spiked” the question), especially in light of Nightline‘s inclusion of another segment:

ABC’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday pressed Barack Obama on the Fast and Furious gun scandal, but his network didn’t allow the question to appear on Nightline, World News or Good Morning America. (All played clips of the interview.) Instead, ABC found time to air Tapper and the President playfully discussing children’s books and the greatness of Dr. Seuss.

During the two-segment long Nightline interview, Tapper hyped, “At the school where we spoke, the President showed off his personal knowledge of children’s books.” The journalist informed Obama, “I’m a big Dr. Seuss guy.”

Here’s the clip that Whitlock was referring to:

Now, to an audience thirsty for any and all things Fast and Furious, that choice does seem absurd, but from a media standpoint, is it really so cut-and-dried? The Dr. Seuss clip is unusual and entertaining, a humanizing, unguarded moment for reporter and subject alike. Its news value rests largely in its behind-the-curtain vibe. The real question isn’t why they included the Seuss clip, but why the Fast and Furious question was omitted.

I reached out to ABC News for comment, but it’s rare for a network to comment on editorial decisions like this, and the reasoning is pretty obvious to me. When I got the transcript of the interview, I actually searched it to see if there was an F&F question, knowing the keen interest that many of our readers have in the story. The President’s response, however, was nothing new, and in the absence of any other context in the interview, wasn’t all that newsworthy. While the exchange was short, editing in enough information to properly contextualize it would have proved time consuming, with little return.

On the other hand, since it was such a short exchange, you could argue that cutting some b-roll and other filler would have made it possible to include it. That’s a judgment call, one that news editors get to make. As Whitlock points out, the transcript is readily available, and easily publicized by websites like Newsbusters and Mediaite. You can decide for yourself if this was a case of “spiking,” but to all appearances, it’s just an example of sound editorial judgment.

Transcript: (via MRC)

It’s a fight literally for our right to exist. Don’t misunderstand what this is. Don’t misunderstand- not a joke, not a joke, not an applause line. You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates. You are the only non-governmental power. The only one who has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught. Ladies and gentleman, that’s why they want you so badly. The middle class is under attack because labor is under the most direct assault in generations. You know, to state simply what I stated two years ago at some of your national conventions, the other side has declared war on labors house and it’s about time we stand up!

Newsbusters‘ Tom Blumer correctly details the lack of coverage, but misses the point (deliberately or not) of Biden’s “Barbarians” reference (while also promoting the lie that Hoffa was “threatening” anyone):

Biden’s statement is in an important aspect more problematic than the more widely (but not sufficiently widely) noted “son of a b*tches” comment made by Teamsters President James Hoffa Jr. in Detroit yesterday at a Labor Day event President Obama keynoted. While Hoffa was threatening and hateful, he was at least in theory speaking only for Big Labor (though Obama has essentially adopted it by not condemning it). In Cincinnati, Biden, who was elected to serve all citizens of the country, personally characterized a large plurality of those he is supposed to be serving with a word which means “savage, primitive, uncivilized persons.” Biden’s “barbarians”comment has received very light establishment press coverage…

For crying out loud, Hoffa is not a “junior!”

Was Biden really characterizing “a large plurality of those he is supposed to be serving” as “savage, primitive, uncivilized persons?”

Clearly, the answer is no on both counts. First of all, he’s clearly referring, as Hoffa was, to elected officials (“You are the only non-governmental power” is the subtle tip-off), not to ordinary citizens.

Secondly, Biden’s use of the word “barbarians,” apt though it may be for some in Congress, is a clear reference to the corporate raiders in the film “Barbarians at the Gate.” In the post-Citizens United world of unlimited corporate contributions, it’s an apt metaphor for workers’ struggle with Koch-funded, anti-labor politicians like Gov. Scott Walker.

For liberals like Crooks and Liars‘ Kenneth Quinnell, Biden’s speech was under-covered for an entirely different reason:

On Labor Day, despite all the focus on Jimmy Hoffa’s comments, it was actually Vice President Joe Biden whose speech was the most important one of the day. He gave the type of speech that labor supporters have long wanted to hear from the White House. The speech was fiery and was an accurate portrayal of the struggle that labor faces in the United States. The problem is we should’ve heard this speech from the president and it should’ve been given years ago and been matched with significant action.

Biden really did get fired up, and barbarianism aside, conservatives are as unlikely to enjoy it for that reason as liberals are likely to eat it up. If the mainstream media were to cover “Barbarians at the Gate”-gate, as conservatives would like, that would inevitably lead to a discussion of the merits of Biden’s core message. That’s a conversation that liberals would welcome, and that would make conservatives be a little more careful about what they wish for.

Here’s video of more of Biden’s speech, followed by his remarks as prepared for delivery. As you can see, the Vice President went off-script quite a bit, including his “Barbarians” riff:

Transcript of remarks as prepared for delivery: (via email from The Office of the Vice President)

REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY,

AT CINCINNATI AFL-CIO LABOR DAY PICNIC

Coney Island

Cincinnati, Ohio

It’s great to be back in Cincinnati, and especially out here at Coney Island.

You know, we’ve been through a lot of fights together, ever since you got me elected in 1972: Stopping the spread of right-to-work laws. Preserving the prevailing wage and worker safety standards and pension protections. Increasing the minimum wage, not gutting it. Strengthening Social Security and Medicare when the other side wanted privatization and vouchers to let them wither on the vine.

But this is a different kind of fight. A fight for the very heart and soul of the labor movement. A fight for the right to exist. It’s more like the fights of my grandfather’s era – to create the National Labor Relations Board, pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, and create unemployment insurance.

It’s more like the fights of my great-grandfather’s day, when workers risked their lives to stand up for basic working conditions and the very right to organize.
We’ve lost some battles along the way, too. But we’ve won when we’ve stayed together.

We’ve won when we placed the middle class above all.

We’ve won, when we’ve amassed our collective will and strength to defeat those who try to stymie American progress.

And we will win this fight the same way: together. Because, this, ladies and gentlemen–this is the fight of our life. Like you guys, the president and I know Labor Day is not about a day—it’s about a life.

It’s about the rights too many people take for granted today – basic things like the forty-hour week and the minimum wage. Today is about remembering that none of those rights would exist if folks like you hadn’t stood up and fought for them. Inch by inch, unions remade our country over the last century. You made it fairer, you made it stronger, more just, and in the process you built the middle class.

I’ll say that again, because it bears repeating: The middle class as we know it would not exist but for organized labor. And, what’s more, the battles labor won raised the standard of living not just for labor—but for all Americans. And, in the process, you built the middle class.

And right now, the middle class is under attack, because labor is under the most direct assault in generations, in your lifetimes. The other side has declared war on labor’s house.

Across the country, from here in Ohio, to Wisconsin and Florida, they’re reopening fights we thought were settled a long time ago.

Governors are rolling back collective bargaining rights. They’re trying to pass paycheck deception laws and pushing for right to work for less laws. And in Washington, the new Republican House majority is going after Davis-Bacon, going after Project Labor Agreements, going after the Department of Labor and the protections workers need in the workplace.

The same guys who came up with subprime mortgages, derivatives, and credit default swaps are the same guys who further cut taxes for the super-wealthy, shifting the burden to ordinary people.

They’re same guys who tried to privatize Social Security and now want to voucherize Medicare.

The result of their actions for the previous eight years, before we took office, not only weakened labor but thrust our country into the deepest recession we’ve ever had short of a Depression.

By the time they left, 8 million people lost their jobs, and we went from a budget surplus to one hemorrhaging debt. And, now, in the irony of all ironies, they are using their failed economic policy and excesses to justify taking away your right to bargain for safe work conditions, a livable wage, and decent health care—rather than acknowledge their excesses and begin to pay their fair share.

It’s absurd. They not only want you—but they want your children and your parents—to pay the price for their folly. It’s a scam.

What we’re fighting for is what my great-grandfather’s generation fought for, my grandfather’s generation, and my father’s fought for. They fought for the right to be heard. They fought for social justice and economic justice.

They stood up for a fundamental American promise – we know it as the American Dream. If you work hard, play by the rules, love your country, there’s nothing you cannot achieve. That every American who does that is entitled to a decent job, live in a safe neighborhood, send your kids to college – and have some savings in the bank when you retire.

And that’s what our generation—that’s what all of you—that’s what Barack and I are fighting for.

That’s why we appointed the daughter of a Teamster, a Congresswoman with a strong pro-labor record, as Secretary of Labor.

That’s why we fought to put thousands of auto workers back to work, making a decent wage, right here in Ohio.

That’s why we put people on the National Labor Relations Board who are there are to protect the rights of workers—not strip the rights of workers.

That’s why we fought so hard to pass the Affordable Care Act, ensuring decent health care for every American.

That’s why we’re cracking down on worker misclassification, so employers can’t avoid paying taxes and deny workers benefits and protections.

That’s why we oppose a plan to ultimately make Medicare a voucher program.

That’s why we continue to provide unemployment insurance to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

That’s why we’re encouraging Project Labor Agreements on government construction projects.

That’s why we cut the payroll tax, saving the average American family a thousand dollars a year in taxes.

That’s why we passed the Recovery Act, to save and create jobs—tens of thousands of them right here in Ohio.

But we need to do more to ensure that our children’s generation will grow as we did. Their future rests on our growth and competitiveness. In order to grow and compete, we need better education, more innovation, and stronger infrastructure—and our opponents are attacking every one of these initiatives.
They want to cut infrastructure by 30%; cut investment in renewable energy by 70%; and cut education by 25%.

But here’s what we want to do. Help with tuition so you can afford to send your kids to college. Invest in research and development so America can create whole new industries and capture the jobs of tomorrow as America has always done. Improve our infrastructure so we can rebuild our roads and bridges – and build the transportation systems and communications systems we’ll need to win the future in order to stay #1 in the world.
We need to give our people the chance to keep showing the world what you and I already know: American workers can out-build, out-think, and out-work anyone else on earth.

Folks, you and I both know that a lot of Americans are still hurting and hurting badly. Millions still unemployed. And millions more underemployed and with stagnant wages.

You know, my dad used to tell me that a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about dignity—respect –your place in the community. It’s about your ability to hold your head high, and to look your children in the eye and say “everything’s going to be OK.” That’s what a job is.

Labor, it’s time to stand up. It’s time to say we’ve had enough. It’s time to demand your place back at the table, in a position of respect, as equals. It’s time to turn the tide, in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, in Florida, everywhere the basic right to bargain fairly is under attack. And it seems to me that’s exactly what you’re doing here in Ohio. Standing up, along with one million, three-hundred-thousand of your fellow Buckeyes who signed a petition demanding a referendum on Senate Bill 5.

The tide is turning, because Americans, union and non-union, are beginning to understand just what these guys are about.

It is basically about the American Dream—that if you work hard, play by the rules, love this country, there’s nothing you cannot achieve.

You’ve helped build that dream, and you’re the lifeblood that will sustain that dream.

Folks—those other guys see the world differently than we do. They have different priorities. They have a different vision.

But it’s not only the vision that’s different—they just have a different value set than you and me and President Obama. We’re not only about building a better infrastructure, providing educational opportunities, and promoting innovative ideas that will keep us the most prosperous country in the world in the 21st Century—we know it’s about more than that.

It’s about dignity. It’s about respect. And, above all, it’s about basic fairness. That’s what America stands for all around the world—fairness. And that is what we must demand at home.

An ancient Greek philosopher Sophocles, once said, “Without labor nothing prospers.”
We know that America will not prosper without you. And, together, we will make sure it does.

So, I ask you to join me in this fight. Will you stand with me? Will you join forces to do what unions have done for a century now: secure fundamental rights and spark American progress?

Folks—no one ever gave it to us—our grandfathers and grandmothers fought for it, our parents fought for it, and we’ve got to fight for it. Fight to keep the American Dream alive.

We’re not going to let anyone roll back the clock.

Thank you all. God bless you, and may God protect our troops. Thank you, and have a great Labor Day!

No, you haven’t forgotten to laugh.

Perhaps a bit of background is necessary. Doonesbury is a comic strip that appears in a thing called a “newspaper,” which is, as the name suggests, made of paper and has news printed on it. The strip has been around for 41 years now, and in its heyday, was known for its subversive edge (subversive compared to Marmaduke, I suppose). Doonesbury is a mixture of ensemble narrative and liberal doses of political commentary.

The Palin strip actually does contain a few funny lines(once it gets going. The first 2 panels are of a character whistling and making Jiffy Pop), but misses badly with its sexist dismount. Perhaps this was an attempt to regain some edge ever since Dennis the Menace went emo, but it ends up being offensive and unfunny, especially in a strip that’s supposed to appeal to liberals.

Here’s Newsbusters’ description:

In the strip, long-time character B.D. is watching a televised interview with Palin in Iowa. She’s asked, “What do you think of Michele Bachmann’s early success here?”

In the second to last frame, the faux Palin said, “And did you see me in Newsweek? That article shows that as president, I’d be totally ready if called on to fill a tight sweater.”

In the next frame, B.D. thinks to himself, “Good one. Advantage Palin” as her interviewer asked, “Are you saying Bachmann wouldn’t?”

The faux Palin responded, “We don’t know. The lamestreamers won’t get the facts out.”

Wow, I haven’t read Doonesbury in a really long time. Doesn’t B.D. always wear a helmet?

Many conservatives have no problem with Sarah Palin as affectionate sex object, and while Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard is rightly offended, he sees this as mainly a partisan issue:

Now imagine for a moment Barack Obama was a Republican, and both Palin and Bachmann were Democrats.

Would Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau be using cheap boob jokes to mock two prominent liberal women?

Yes, that was rhetorical.

Well, allow me to respond anyway. While Garry Trudeau might be less likely to target Democrats, there are plenty of media types, left, right, and center, who have no problem making sexist remarks about liberal figures like Hillary Clinton, First Lady Michelle Obama, Janet Napolitano, and so on. It seems the only time conservatives care about sexism is when the media they hate fails to call out sexism against a conservative. Sexism, as any woman will tell you, is not a partisan issue.

For viewers unfamiliar with AAF, it might have been helpful to mention that Holtz-Eakin was chief economic adviser to Sen. John McCain‘s presidential campaign.

Amanpour introduced the other guests in a way that would help to inform viewers about their points of view, if any, calling Paul Krugman a “columnist for the New York Times,” Carol Lee a reporter “who covers the White House for the Wall Street Journal,” and identifying Jared Bernstein as a former adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

But Douglas Holtz-Eakin was introduced as “former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and he’s now president of the American Action Forum,” making no mention of Holtz-Eakin’s connection to the McCain campaign. Viewers who were unaware that AAF is a conservative 501(c)(3) organization (likely most of them) would probably infer that a former head of the non-partisan CBO is just a regular economist with no ax to grind. And who doesn’t like getting a little American Action now and then?

Ironically, conservative watchdog Newsbusters finds “liberal bias” in an exchange between Amanpour and Holtz-Eakin that would have made a lot more sense had Amanpour disclosed Holtz-Eakin’s background. He makes the ridiculous charge that the Compromiser-in-Chief is “ideologically inflexible,” and Amanpour weakly challenges him:

Transcript:

AMANPOUR: Well, Doug, can he be bold for the very reasons that poll just suggested, it’s — it’s not possible?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: Well, the question is, can he show some ideological flexibility, which he has not shown so far? He showed a little leg this week by rolling back a very expensive rule with the EPA. That was important.

AMANPOUR: Do you think that’s true, that he hasn’t shown flexibility, since he’s — he’s sort of come completely to the Republican end of the debate?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: But what we’ve seen is again and again the same playbook, which is we want to focus on near-term stimulus. And if you look at measures, like the budget deficit, if the economy is at full employment, that’s still rising in 2011. That playbook’s been in place. It’s not working. It didn’t work in the ’60s and ’70s, when we used, again and again, to use stimulus to fine-tune the economy.

So he needs to go to a different playbook, which says we have to have a fundamental change toward a growth philosophy. We need to have some permanent changes, like a lower corporate rate, tax repatriations for our business community. And he actually does have to show some respect for the business community. He needs small, medium and large businesses not to be the target of sort of class warfare rhetoric, but to be the focus of his policies.

Coming from a straight down-the-middle CBO economist, that’s pretty damning stuff, and that’s what Amanpour’s audience was led to believe they were getting, not a Republican shill-for-hire.

Amusingly, Newsbusters doubles down on the deception, diverging from This Week‘s transcript to include that shiny CBO credential after his name, and also never identifying him as a former McCain adviser and president of a conservative PAC. As an unabashedly conservative website, I expect nothing less, but from a legitimate news organization like ABC News, we should all expect more.

This story has been updated to reflect the fact that Newsbusters did not alter This Week‘s transcript in their story. Although the story doesn’t source the transcript, author Noel Sheppard, via email, says he used his own transcription.

On his GPS program Sunday morning, Fareed Zakaria told viewers that he thinks “liberals need to grow up” and realize that President Obama’s oratorical gifts have their limits. The declaration has earned him sharp rebuke among liberals, but also from conservative sites like Newsbusters, each of whom see Zakaria’s premise at odds with reality.

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS:

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard points out that there has been plenty of air and ink devoted to the idea that the S&P downgrade is the fault of the Tea Party and the Republicans, which is true, then chides Zakaria for complaining about liberals doing what people like Zakaria have trained them to do:

Maybe this “recurring liberal fantasy” was fostered by folks like Zakaria that presented Barack Obama to the American people as a messiah. If the public has a Hollywood-like view of this president, it’s because the media put him on a pedestal like nobody before him.

It’s true that liberals have been too hard on President Obama at times, but not out of some magical belief in his powers. Many were disappointed that health care reform didn’t include a public option, or that the President didn’t pass a larger, less tax cut-heavy stimulus package, when he had control of both houses of Congress. A lot of us blamed weak “conservadems” for undercutting stronger measures, but as President of the United States, Barack Obama should have been able to heel those blue dogs.

There was also a lot of impatience with the President on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but history has shown that his handling of that issue was pitch-perfect.

Now that the House has gone Lipton, and the Senate is no longer filibuster-proof, there’s a tendency in this town for people to be like the Oliver Platt character in 2012, whose every utterance is a way too-harsh reality. “What, you thought we weren’t going to eat live, skinned puppies? Grow up!”

But a divided government is not the end of the world as we know it, and liberals have a right to be disappointed in President Obama’s performance in the debt ceiling “negotiation.” It wasn’t his silver tongue that we expected to save the day, but rather, the overwhelming public support for his position, and the near-universal agreement that the threat of a default was unacceptable. Instead, they got the Bad Haggler-in-Chief. From Crooks and Liars:

No, liberals aren’t upset that he doesn’t make more heartwarming speeches. Liberals are upset that Obama’s tactics to negotiate in the conditions Zakaria describes is to start out giving the other side more than 50% of what they want and move further to the right from there. But that’s a much harder position to defend, so Chait and Zakaria create a strawman to make liberals look unreasonable. Further, there is no indication–as Zakaria asserts–that Americans are concerned with jobs AND deficit spending. Americans care about their jobs and the economy vis a vis whether they’ll have a job in the foreseeable future.

There is another strain of Obama worship that pervades some in the political classes, a confidence in his political skills that imbues them with a sense that he’s got something up his sleeve, and we just don’t know what it is yet. Such confidence is not without basis, as this President has performed more rope-a-dopes than a narcoleptic Rock ‘em Sock ‘em Robot.

Barring some kind of major twist, though, the current calculation seems to be that Republican intransigence will turn the tide of independent voters in Obama’s direction. If the “SuperCongress” spits out a deal that resembles the balanced approach that Americans want, and that they wanted President Obama to fight for, this debt ceiling fight could work out in his favor. Unfortunately, the threat of across-the-board cuts that would cripple the government is, to Tea Partiers, like the threat of ice cream to a toddler.

The Tea Party, and the Republicans, will rightly take heat for having put a gun to the head of the US economy, but liberal angst at the President has to do with the fact that he negotiated a resolution that allowed them to shoot each hostage in the leg.

Their hearts are in the right place, but is Newsbusters really helping Bachmann out by starting a national debate about how crazy she looks?

Newsbusters‘ headline might make you think they’re just being oversensitive, but once you get a load of Newsweek‘s cover, it’s immediately apparent that they have a point. Newsweek subscribers, upon receiving this issue, will probably scratch their heads trying to remember when they signed up for a trial subscription to It Puts The Lotion In The Basket Weekly.

There’s something about Newsbusters Editor Noel Sheppard‘s commentary that isn’t quite right, though. Take a look at the full cover, and tell me if you can see what’s missing from Sheppard’s one line of criticism about Newsweek:

Exactly what were the editors thinking putting this kind of a picture of a sitting Congresswoman and presidential candidate on their cover?

Is Sheppard conceding the point that Michele Bachmann is “The Queen Of Rage,” as the Newsweek cover giant-fontedly dubs her? If not, it’s a pretty glaring omission.

Sheppard also neglects to mention any of the previous Newsweek cover “controversies,” a deviation from Newsbusters’ normally exhaustive M.O.

A cynic might wonder if the real point of this item was, in fact, to start a national debate about how crazy Michele Bachmann looks. In a Republican presidential field that’s weaker than Charles Atlas beginners class, Bachmann’s ability to connect with the energized Tea Party base has made her a danger to the likes of Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Tim Pawlenty (R-UhRoh). Republicans have come out of the woodwork to attack Bachmann over her migraines. A debate over her “crazy eyes” fits in well with a strategy to discredit a candidate who is a very real threat to the GOP establishment.

For what it’s worth, the Newsweek photo certainly doesn’t seem designed to flatter Bachmann, and is strongly evocative of her post-SOTU address to the faerie on the cameraman’s shoulder, but it’s probably intended to pair with that “Queen Of Rage” headline. It’s tough to see how anyone could have a problem with one, and not the other.

Given Lopez’s prior Palin pronouncements (he previously threatened to move to Mexico if she’s elected President, and called her a “bitch” in Spanish), it’s hard to see what they’re all getting worked up over, but it does underscore the degree to which Michele Bachmann has sucked all of the air out of Palin’s presidential ambitions.

Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard was oddly offended that CNN would highlight Lopez’s quote to promote the episode, even as he was writing an entire article highlighting the quote. The Daily Caller‘s Laura Donovan was subtle in her mockery, referring to Lopez as “the Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2 actor,” but also had the good grace to plug his movie, noting that “Lopez’s newest project, ‘The Smurfs,’ hits theaters Friday.”

Morgan asked Lopez why he felt that way about Palin, to which the Balls of Fury star replied, “I like my politicians to actually have a political background, to be politically — to know politics, to actually have inherited something from working in the political world.”

It may be a symptom of the never-ending, microscopic news cycle, but listening to Lopez joke about a Palin presidential run sounds oddly dated. Since entering the 2012 GOP primary race, Rep. Michele Bachmann seems to be getting all of the ink Palin used to get. You would never know that Palin is actually polling dead even, or even slightly ahead, in recent GOP primary polls.

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight:

Matthews’ larger point is hard to argue with, and despite obvious differences from the Halperin incident (Matthews’ show airs in the late afternoon; the verb form of “dick” is arguably less offensive; he wasn’t referring to a person or persons, but to an activity that’s pretty hard to defend), Newsbusters editor Noel Sheppard‘s conclusion is essentially correct:

This came a day after numerous F-bombs were broadcast during MSNBC’s Independence Day coverage of the Casey Anthony trial.

Speaking of F-bombs, MSNBC intentionally aired one during last Monday’s “The Last Word.”

Yet the only MSNBCer to be suspended or disciplined in any way so far was been Halperin.

It sure seems vulgarity is quite acceptable on this so-called “news” network – as long as it’s not directed at the President, that is.

Given their mission statement, though, it appears that Newsbusters sees this as evidence of liberal media bias. This assertion ignores the fact that Halperin made his statement on the one and only MSNBC program that features a conservative host. The move to suspend Halperin had little to do with profanity, as Sheppard ably illustrates, and everything to do with protecting the prestige and influence of Morning Joe. At best, it was purely a business decision, but if there was a partisan aim, it was to protect a center-right program.

The story begins with Monday’s Politico piece, which argues that Rick Perry gay rumors could be the new Barack Obama Muslim rumors, and that Perry’s team, should he decide to run for President, is bracing for impact. Miller enters the story as she evaluates a clip of Limbaugh discussing Perry today, complaining that liberals have claimed Perry “looks like an alien” and comparing his looks to Supreme Court nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Miller jokes that “if [Perry] turns out to be gay, Rush wont be friends with him,” to which a co-host responds, in faux-news anchor voice, “noted homosexual Rick Perry.” Miller then tells him to simmer down: “we don’t know that for sure, Politico.”

Conservative watchdog Newsbusters immediately accused Miller of “spreading the rumor” that Perry is gay, though while being the one to bring up the Politico article, Miller very clearly states she sees no evidence to believe that. They go on to speculate as to whether Miller would have been comfortable with that joke before coming out of the closet herself last August.

There are several nodes of debate around which to argue. The first, of course, is the initial rumor that Perry is gay– the sort of rumor that, for a social conservative, can be seriously damning. The obvious point that such rumors have no place in the political discourse has time and again been proven one of the most adept at being completely ignored by anyone affecting the political discourse– a sad but nonetheless concrete reality perpetuated by the insatiable thirst the news cycle seems to have for sex– real or virtual, gay or straight, proven or rumored. Politico may be reporting on a story about a rumor, and not that rumor itself, but throwing a shiny little trinket like a gay rumor out there is more than enough to distract the media for at least a few hours– and that Politico ran the story makes the rumor fair game for someone like Miller in some contexts.

Miller used the story only to highlight what she perceives as Limbaugh’s homophobia– an entirely different argument altogether– but never suggested she believed the rumors. Nor did her co-host, whose fake newscaster voice may have even been a Limbaugh impression of how he would talk about Perry if he were gay (but was more likely just a throwaway comment), definitively “out” Perry. Newsbuster‘s Jack Coleman‘s issue with the clip from Miller’s show appears to be that, because she was permitted to stay in the closet until she was ready to come out, she should give the same respect to those who may or may not be ready yet: Miller apparently wants Republican politicians she suspects of being gay to come out of the closet as well, regardless of whether they are so inclined,” he writes.

First of all, by defending Perry from Miller’s “outing,” it is Coleman who is assuming that the governor is in the closet. Secondly, Miller did not opine on whether she wants people to come out of the closet or not. Miller only accused Limbaugh of homophobia– a claim that, given Elton John‘s appearance at Limbaugh’s latest wedding, is more than up for debate– but did not comment on Perry. In fact, Miller goes out of her way to tell Politico to hold their horses on this one. To raise the specter of hypocrisy at Miller because she happens to be gay doesn’t exactly tackle the key problem the arises in even bothering to address these rumors as if they had any impact on Rick Perry as a political figure that has the power to influence millions of American lives. Sure, Miller is as guilty as Politico and Newsbusters for polluting the national discussion with the topic (even if Rick Perry does end up being gay, wasting time on this and not his actual policies hurts American voters)– in fact, the only innocent party here on this front is Rush Limbaugh. But using her personal life as a weapon against her to defend Rush Limbaugh from completely unrelated claims that Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor “look like aliens”– an entire post’s worth of outrage trapped in that phrase alone– does nothing but perpetuate the desire for such personal talk in the national discourse and diminish the possibility of worthwhile political debate.

[h/t]

Walsh appeared on The Ed Show with Prof. Michael Eric Dyson Monday night, where they discussed Gingrich’s oeuvre, and punched holes in the right’s predictable argument that is it Walsh who is, in fact, the racist for noticing.

Conservative media watchdog Newsbusters, somewhat to their credit, doesn’t rely on this idiotic premise, but in the first paragraph of their writeup on Walsh, identify the flaw in the right’s typical defense of this sort of thing: (emphasis mine)

NBC’s David Gregory started a Newt Gingrich is racist trend Sunday that liberal media members across the fruited plain quickly embraced.

Yes, Newt Gingrich just emerged from the cabbage patch onto the set of Meet the Press, and was cruelly ambushed by David Gregory over this completely innocent remark, a remark that ignores the fact that President Obama cut food stamps (Rush Limbaugh said so!). He’s never made any other questionable statements, and no Republican  has ever tried to demonize black people as abusers of public assistance.

Except he has, and they have, which makes this statement by Big Journalism’s Dana Loesch either ignorant, or dishonest:

In a conversation about race, when one immediately thinks of black Americans when one hears food stamps, is not that a clear indicator of prejudice and stereotyping?

If you said yes, then check out the latest column from Salon’s Joan Walsh. Apparently, Joan Walsh believes food stamps are something inherent to black Americans only.

Got that? The guy who’s running against the first black President evokes a stereotype that his party’s Dalai Lama perfected, but it is Joan Walsh who  is the racist for noticing!

You don’t even have to go back to Reagan to hear the beat of this drum. Modern, supposedly post-Southern Strategy conservatives never shut up about how Democrats are keeping black voters “on the plantation” through social programs like food stamps. Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard helpfully points out that most food stamps recipients are white, but the message to Gingrich’s audience is that the white ones are just honest, hard-working people who are going through a rough spell, and the black ones are hitching their wagons to Obama for a handout.

Both Loesch and Sheppard ignore the fact that Walsh also placed Gingrich’s comments in context with other recent examples of this tactic. In fact, in her Ed Show appearance, Walsh even allows that if the food stamp remark was an isolated incident, it might be possible to overlook it.

Of course, it isn’t, not for Gingrich, and not for his party. In the segment leading up to the panel discussion, Schultz runs through several examples. While thorough, Ed does badly miss the point of pre-Civil Rights voter literacy tests, which were not at all about exploiting black disadvantages in education. It didn’t matter what you knew, or didn’t know. The only correct answer to those test questions was “You ain’t gonna vote today, boy!”

Dyson and Walsh explain why they believe Gingrich is engaging in barely-coded race-baiting. Dyson makes the point that Gingrich’s “water’s edge” language affords him a double-dip at racial resentment, allowing him to not only attach President Obama to black freeloaders, but to stir resentment of anyone who calls him out on it by playing the victim. He and Walsh also emphasize that this is a pattern with Gingrich, and that Gingrich is supposedly a student of history, key points in divining his intent.

It is unfortunate that many conservatives are so heavily invested in reflexively defending people like Gingrich, instead of joining the few who have the courage to call it out, and maybe eradicate it. As Dyson points out, the whole point of these dog whistles is “plausible deniability.” If Gingrich were out there saying “Obama is the lazy n***er President,” it wouldn’t be a dog whistle, it’d just be a whistle.

Are there conservatives who are wrongly accused of dog whistling? Certainly. Although he hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt, I tend to believe George Allen‘s explanation of a recent remark that offended a reporter. If conservatives like Loesch and Sheppard would ever acknowledge that it is possible to say something racist without using the n-word and burning a cross (or, y’know, pointing out when someone is doing that), their defenses of people like Gingrich might actually have some resonance. It’s too bad, because if Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Donald Trump are any indication, the 2012 campaign is going to keep them very busy.

One final note for Ed Schultz: I don’t think adding “ster” to someone’s name carries the wallop you think it does. Edster. See? It barely registers.

Here’s the segment, from The Ed Show on MSNBC:

Wonkette‘s Jack Stuef published a vile post “celebrating” Trig Palin’s birthday on Monday, which drew widespread outrage, and caused several advertisers to desert the site. After some pushback from Wonkette editor Ken Layne, Stuef’s byline was deleted from the post, and an apology was later added. Sincere or not, Stuef’s apology hasn’t stopped a Twitter campaign to target Wonkette‘s advertisers.

In the run-up to Stuef’s apology Wednesday, Wonkette editor Ken Layne was characteristically defiant in emails to Adweek, Slate‘s Dave Weigel, and to me (full disclosure: Layne and I worked on the same blog a few years ago, AOL’s Political Machine. Ironically, his column was called “Ken Layne’s Outrage”).

Over the course of those conversations, Layne’s viewpoint softened a bit, some would say because a handful of advertiser had already pulled their ads from the site over the post. He “admonished” the writer, and shortly thereafter, Stuef added the following apology to the post:

I regret this post and using the word “retarded” in a reference to Sarah Palin’s child. It’s not nice, and is not necessary, but I take responsibility for writing it. For those who came and are offended by this post: I’m sorry, of course. But I stand by my criticism of Sarah Palin using her child as a political prop.

Stuef’s apology probably hasn’t mollified anyone, but least of all a Twitter group that continues to target Wonkette’s advertisers.

To the extent that anyone cares, here are some of my thoughts on the issues surrounding this story, apart from the revulsion I have already recorded at length.

Keeping Score

I didn’t bring this up at first because I did not want to distract, in any way, from the reprehensible nature of Stuef’s attack, but now that it has been duly registered (and remains the top priority in any discussion of this story), I feel compelled to bring this up. In the initial wave of outrage over this, Newsbusters had this to say:

What has become of today’s liberalism that makes it acceptable to attack the mentally handicapped if they or their parents are conservatives?

Despite the fact that my own website (in the person of my respected and beloved colleague Alex Alvarez) called this a “reasonable question,” I take issue with this, and with subsequent efforts to finger-wag at “the left” for allegedly failing to denounce.

Set aside the factual deficiencies in this premise, such as the fact that Wonkette is not run by a liberal, but a left-leaning libertarian. Set aside the fact that many prominent liberals (and the liberal you’re now reading) have denounced this. (Keith Olbermann, with whom I have recently feuded, has said that he plans a “Worst Persons” segment on this, and hopefully, Stuef’s targeting of Trig will affect a change of heart in him about targeting SE Cupp’s parents. Either way, it’s to his credit that he chooses to stand up for children, rather than to remain silent and chuckle at the evisceration of Sarah Palin.)

Set aside the fact that neither side had much to say about their own when the “retard” controversy was hitting Rahm Emanuel and Rush Limbaugh.

My problem with this is that, as someone who cleverly tricked himself into revealing that he has some skin in this game, I find that the mere effort at political scorekeeping reveals a cheap motivation that’s nearly as offensive as what Stuef did. My kids are not a bloody shirt to be waved by the right, or the left. Or by me, which is why I never intended to bring them into it.

Doesn’t Palin Use Trig as a Prop?

Regardless of your opinion on this question, Stuef’s post was still vile and irredeemable. Still, there are some on the left whose hatred of Palin is so irrational that they grasp at any possible means to discredit her, like her parenting skills. This is a small subset, and one which has been pushed back against by prominent liberals (and me).

I’m not sure what the logic is here. Was Palin supposed to leave Trig on the side of a mountain to die? All politicians are photographed with their families, and if Palin is somehow empirically proven to show Trig off more than normal, it could be to prevent the criticism that she’s ashamed of him. Or it could be that she’s, y’know, proud of him.

There are examples of Palin politicizing aspects of her family life (unrelated to Trig) that I do find objectionable, but not nearly as objectionable as the way some Palin critics have tried to exploit Trig Palin to shame his mother. Not only is it disgusting, it undermines legitimate criticisms of Palin.

Targeting Advertisers

The First Amendment cuts in every direction, so nothing I say here should be construed as a wish to quash any of what anyone is saying. There are great arguments in favor of targeting advertisers, chief among them that it seems to have worked.

That said, I personally oppose the idea. As a general rule, I think the best way to respond to objectionable speech is with more speech, not less. I also believe that ideas should live or die based on their merits, and I don’t like the idea of people who hate something ruining that thing for people who enjoy it. For example, I don’t think liberals should try to pressure Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers, but rather, channel that energy into supporting decent liberal radio shows.

I think this kind of campaign is counter-productive to the larger goal of encouraging empathy for special needs kids. Stuef’s apology is obviously a bit self-serving, but I suspect that no amount of dissected flesh would satisfy the anti-Wonkette crusade. Point having been made, what is left to accomplish? Will running Wonkette out of business help special needs kids? Will getting Jack Stuef fired from his non-paying job help them? Or will it make this campaign appear to be exploiting them as a pretext to destroy Wonkette?

Despite their outward bravado, I think Layne and Stuef have learned their lesson, and are likely to be more empathetic to our kids in the future, which should be enough. Again, have at it if you want, but at a certain point, you cross over from concerned advocate to vengeful jerk.

There’s one final, hilarious irony to this story, which is that the group targeting Wonkette’s advertisers is using the obviously-never-said-out-loud hashtag #TrigsCrew. How badly do you suppose Jack Stuef wants to write a post about that?

Update: Wonkette has deleted the post, and replaced it with this message: (h/t Little Miss Attila)

Rude Post Deleted By Editor; Author Apologizes

A post on this page satirizing Sarah Palin using her baby as a political prop was very badly done and sounded like the author was mocking the child and not just Sarah Palin/Sarah Palin’s followers.

The writer, Jack Stuef, has apologized for it. And we have decided to remove the post as requested by some people who have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, but who do have an interest in the cause of special needs children. We apologize for the poor comedic judgment.

On the subject of Wonkette’s deletion, I am of two minds. Layne’s original decision to leave it up had the benefit of being both journalistically transparent, and a permanent shame-monument.

On the other hand, it also served as a sort of perpetual frag grenade, injuring anew every time it would be viewed. For that reason, I suppose the deletion is a good thing.

What’s not so good is Layne’s description of the post, which may be honest in his own  eyes, but is far from accurate. That’s the downside of this approach, but there’s nothing preventing Wonkette from adding a fairer description.

Newsbusters prefaces its story by asking a reasonable question: “What has become of today’s liberalism that makes it acceptable to attack the mentally handicapped if they or their parents are conservatives?”

Wonkette commemorated Trig’s third birthday on Monday by poking fun at a poem that a Palin supporter – “Lynda” – had written in the little boy’s honor:

Sweet Angel Boy…

Oh, little boy what are you dreaming about
Candy canes and mom’s sweet hugs

Oh, sweet baby boy what are you dreaming about
Play cars…trains…planes and a daddy’s strong hands as he lifts you high and makes you laugh…oh, how safe you feel in those hands

Oh, little boy what are dreaming about
Sisters who play with you…and teach you new words

Oh, as you sleep little boy what are you dreaming about
A big bother that carries you on his shoulders…as he shows you the blue sky

Oh, little boy what are you dreaming about
A mother’s soft lullaby…the soft touch of her hand…the soft sound of her voice as she says “I Love You”
Dream on little boy as the Angels stand guard

Wonkette reacted thusly:

That strange man yelling unintelligibly at Sarah Palin? He’s merely a lowly shepherd proclaiming the birth of our savior. Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history.

The post also encouraged Trig to “Get drunk (on purpose this time)!” and described him as “the smartest one in that family” while also offering a couple of photo collages of the three-year-old, including one featuring an animated stripper. The crux of Wonkette’s post, callous joking aside, seemed to be an annoyance with what the site views as Palin’s tendency to use her son’s disability as a prop or a strategic tool to help win favor and further her political career.

Newsbusters quoted these passages and asked its readers what must have happened so that a post like Wonkette’s could be considered “acceptable political commentary.” Our own Tommy Christopher is rather inclined to agree, Tweeting earlier this afternoon that the Wonkette post is an “Irredeemable Blight,” and that he refuses to link to them in the future.

We’re keen on knowing what you all think, though. Is it ever okay to go after a public figure’s young children, even if that figure has chosen to bring his or her child into the spotlight? Is Newsbusters right to be offended by the post? Was Wonkette’s “birthday greeting” a satirical – if provocative – dig at Palin?

We know how we feel about it, of course. Going after Palin for (arguably) using her son’s condition to her advantage is one thing, but the post wasn’t simply insulting to Palin. (Or to the author of that… rather interesting bit of poetry.) It was insulting to a young child who, while now in the spotlight, never asked to be. So why criticize that which you hate by becoming a part of it?

h/t Newsbusters and Wonkette

Scarborough asked Brzezinski “What’s wrong with you?” as she was bent over with laughter at the Cheney bit that Scarborough said was “mean-spirited.” She carried on laughing for a full 63 seconds during that segment (at least, according to Newsbusters, who timed Mika’s laughing jag), and started up again later in the show.

About 20 minutes after her first outburst, as they returned from a commercial break, Brzezinski was doubled over again, as the show’s producer informed Scarborough that the show was receiving angry emails on the subject. Mika appeared to want to offer an explanation, beginning, “It’s just funny TV,” but Scarborough decided to move on.

Was the bit really that funny, or that offensive? You be the judge. Here are the two clips, from MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

The bit was really just a rehash of Cheney jokes that have been kicked around more than a rented soccer ball, but there’s no accounting for taste. Brzezinski’s reaction was definitely over the top, but not worthy of angry emails, and certainly not worthy of this ultra-dramatic reaction from Newsbusters‘ Mark Finkelstein:

Are you old enough to remember the polio-era line: “funny as an iron lung”? After all, what kind of person would find funny the notion of someone fighting to breathe?

Answer: Mika Brzezinski.

Today’s Morning Joe played a Letterman clip of a faux-promo for an imaginary TV show called “The Dick Cheney Story.” As the title song from the Mary Tyler Moore Show plays merrily in the background, we’re treated to images of Cheney wielding a gun, in a wheelchair and undergoing open-heart surgery. The clip closes with video of Cheney fighting to get a breath of air.

Really? It looks to me like Letterman looped some video of Cheney pausing for breath during an interview in order to evoke the hack Cheney-as-Darth Vader cliché. It’s not like he was being waterboarded.

I do have to give Finkelstein props for bringing up the polio era, a reference that’s only slightly less timely than Letterman’s use of The Mary Tyler Moore show as parody fodder. I hear The Late Show is now furiously trying to book Yahoo Serious, Yakov Smirnoff, and The California Raisins for next week.

The heart surgery thing wasn’t funny either, but we’re about a decade late to start being outraged about Cheney heart condition jokes. Personally, I’m not opposed to heart attack humor on principle, as long as the punchline is still around to respond. Letterman’s biggest crime here is not being funny, and Mika’s is her lack of recognition of same.

According to a review by The Dallas Voice, Maher’s use of the slur constitutes “fearlessness”:

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

Shock humor is a staple of the stand-up comedy world, so policing the language of stand-up comics is an impossible task, and an undesirable one. Stand-up comedy is art, and is due the same latitude as other art forms.

But, as Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard points out, Bill Maher isn’t your typical comic:

Maher is indeed doing political commentary. When he gets interviewed by CNN, MSNBC, or any of the broadcast network news programs, it’s not to do one-liners.

It is instead for him to offer his political views about current events in a venue made for such a thing.

Yet, when he makes a comment that crosses the line, he’ll conveniently hide behind the comedian veil and folks on the Left will wittingly give him a pass.

I disagree with that last part, of course, since Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers immediately comes to mind as someone who has denounced Maher’s attacks. Misogyny isn’t just a left/right issue, as the recent #MooreAndMe flap attests.

However, I will concede that there are some who have differing standards on language, depending on the speaker and the target, but that’s also not a left/right issue. Sarah Palin is a great example of this from the right.

But on the subject of Bill Maher, Sheppard is absolutely right, Maher is too far out into the political punditsphere to be able to jump back behind the stand-up comic wall when it suits him, and verbal violence like this has no place in politics.

Besides, I’ve seen this kind of thing from Maher for a long time, and his use of shocking language and jokes, more often than not, is used as a replacement for actual material, rather than as an enhancement.

Maher isn’t likely to stop any time soon, unless some of his guests begin to confront and call him out for it, like Dana Loesch did over his use of the term “Teabagger,” or until he stops getting a reaction.

Noel Sheppard’s apology is not the weaselly “sorry if you got offended” kiss-off that’s so popular nowadays, but an honest-to-goodness admission that he got it wrong:

This post has been modified from its original version.

After discussing with my colleagues the subject of this article, which claimed Mother Jones’s David Corn and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews engaged in an anti-Semitic discussion on Monday’s “Hardball,” I have decided that I do not stand by my allegation.

I apologize to Corn and Matthews for my misinterpretation of this conversation.

In the realm of online political media, and especially media criticism, it is rare to see anything but a grudging correction, and more often, the reaction to being called out is a face-saving double down. However, it has been my experience that Newsbusters, their opinion and analysis notwithstanding, make an effort to be honest and transparent, so this doesn’t surprise me.

Hopefully, the many conservative sites that picked this story up will also promote Sheppard’s retraction and apology.

In case you missed it, here is the original clip, followed by Newsbusters’ transcript of the portion in question (at about the 2 min mark):

Here’s Newsbusters’ transcript of the exchange:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This coalition between the Right and Israel, the evangelical right in the United States, is not founded on personal friendships or anything like that, or even values. It’s founded on some sort of weird, rightwing thing where you just high five each other there at the Western Wall and then that’s done, they’re trip.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: But there is a theological component which Gene was referring to…

MATTHEWS: Explain.

CORN: …Which is there’s a certain brand of evangelical Christians who believe in Revelations, that Armageddon is coming, and that will happen in Israel basically.

MATTHEWS: If they hold the West Bank.

CORN: If they hold, well there’s a lot of different components to that, but that’s why they like Israel. That’s why they want Israel to be strong. It’s not because…

MATTHEWS: It’s not personal.

CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.

MATTHEWS: [Laughs hysterically]

There ought to be a special word for falsely accusing a Jewish person of anti-Semitism. Maybe “anti-Semitism³?”

Update: David Corn responds to Newsbusters’ charge.

The offending quote occurs at about the 2-minute mark in this clip: (from MSNBC)

Here’s Newsbusters’ transcript of the exchange:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This coalition between the Right and Israel, the evangelical right in the United States, is not founded on personal friendships or anything like that, or even values. It’s founded on some sort of weird, rightwing thing where you just high five each other there at the Western Wall and then that’s done, they’re trip.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: But there is a theological component which Gene was referring to…

MATTHEWS: Explain.

CORN: …Which is there’s a certain brand of evangelical Christians who believe in Revelations, that Armageddon is coming, and that will happen in Israel basically.

MATTHEWS: If they hold the West Bank.

CORN: If they hold, well there’s a lot of different components to that, but that’s why they like Israel. That’s why they want Israel to be strong. It’s not because…

MATTHEWS: It’s not personal.

CORN: Right. It’s not because they like Jews or Israelis.

MATTHEWS: [Laughs hysterically]

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard never gets around to explaining why Corn’s remark is anti-Semitic, but does thoughtfully ask, “Which was more anti-Semitic: Corn’s comment or Matthews’ laughter afterwards?”

Is there a third choice, like “Newsbusters’ insistence that David Corn is an anti-Semite?”

Earlier in the clip, Matthews, Corn, and Eugene Robinson discuss the strain of Evangelical Christianity that believes in an end times prophecy which depends on Israel for its fruition, and whose only survivors will be those who convert to Christianity. They’re not making it up; I grew up in such a church.

On that count, Sheppard almost has a point when he says that Corn’s remark is “insulting to evangelical Christians.” It’s true that Corn’s view, popular among liberals, is uncharitable. In my church, we were taught to love non-believers, and to try and “save” them by witnessing to them if they were receptive, and to witness by example.

However, those non-believers can be forgiven for not appreciating a love that’s predicated on a belief that they will burn forever in a lake of fire if they don’t repent their non-believing ways. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Update: I emailed David the link to Newsbusters’ piece, and asked if he had any reaction to this unbelievable accusation. Here’s his response:

You ask if I can believe it? I cannot comprehend this charge. Literally. I don’t follow the extrapolation. How does questioning the motives of right-wing evangelical fundamentalists regarding their support of Israel translate into bias against Jews? If you get an explanation from Newsbusters, please forward.

Update: Newsbusters has apparently deleted the post, without explanation. Visitors to the link get the message “Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.” You can still see some or all of it at the various sites that amplified it.

Update: Noel Sheppard apologizes.

A fine example is the one Graham uses in the introduction to his piece:

How much of a liberal and Democratic partisan was new White House press secretary James Carney at Time magazine? Digging through the MRC archives provides a dossier of clues. Here’s one. After George W. Bush went jogging with him in 2000, Carney turned around on his fellow Yale alum and “reported” that “Bush tore into McCain like a pit bull let loose in a slaughterhouse.” Balance and equanimity were not Carney’s style. He rose through the ranks to Washington Bureau Chief in 2005 by toeing the liberal line…

That quote is cherry-picked from “My Jog With George,” and while the observation may seem harsh, compared to the reality of what Bush’s campaign did to McCain in South Carolina, the assessment is generous. The balance of the piece paints Bush in a fairly positive light, with much of their conversation remaining off the record. Even granting Graham’s premise, though, is the reader to conclude that Carney was “in the tank” for John McCain?

The liberal blog Crooks and Liars certainly thought so when they accused Carney of saying that “Iraq is McCain’s Winning Issue” as a member of a February, 2008 This Week roundtable. Of course, that’s not exactly what Carney said:

CARNEY: On Iraq, I’m not sure that it’s…that he can’t win that argument. I think that if you’re forward looking, that the public has already decided what it thinks about what happened and how we got in and whether it’s been done well. But I think, you know, McCain can effectively frame an argument that says, you know, “I’m a much better steward going forward” than Democrats who are going to come in and say, “let’s just get out.” Imagine what will happen with the military brass and conservative establishment and people who just don’t want to see us hightail it out of there without honor. I think that can be a very effective argument and the Democratic nominee, whether it’s Obama or Clinton, has to have an answer to that that’s acceptable.

Over the years, liberal media watchdog Media Matters has also whacked Carney repeatedly, most notably regarding his assessment of a McCain campaign ad. They have also published a laundry list of Carney/Time Magazine grievances, and took issue with Carney himself on six other occasions. That’s not the kind of record you’d expect to see from a “liberal and Democratic partisan.”

You also wouldn’t expect such an individual to say that “the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land,” which Carney did in response to liberal bloggers who flamed him over his comparison of George W. Bush‘s political standing in 2007 with that of Bill Clinton in 1995. While some might read the Limbaugh crack as a “partisan” jab, it’s fair to say that Rush earned the rebuke fair and square. A year earlier, he attacked Carney and his wife, ABC News National Correspondent Claire Shipman, as “slave-owner and husband.”

Do all of these attacks by liberals prove that Carney is actually biased in favor of conservatives? I haven’t seen anyone, even Media Matters, make that claim. The left’s knock on the mainstream media has long been that they’re too susceptible to the Drudge-driven right-wing echo chamber, and that they respond to charges of bias by replacing objectivity with faux “balance.” In that regard, some of the knocks against Carney are of debatable merit.

Since he’s going to be the next White House Press Secretary, I’ve tried to get a handle on Carney’s work as a journalist, as well. The most remarkable thing, to me, is that in a twenty-year career, Carney has largely avoided controversy, and he hasn’t done so by hiding in obscurity. Not only was he an early adopter of the high-volume, less-filtered blogging platform, Carney has also been a fixture on political television. A review of his Clinton-era TV appearances reveals an analyst with a cool temperature, in stark contrast to the politics of the time. In particular, his take on the third Bush/Gore debate belies any partisan bias at all, as he generally agrees with a panel that awards the debate to Gore on the substance, yet concludes that it helps Bush. It’s an analysis that probably didn’t please either “side,” but turned out to be correct, if self-fulfilling.

What controversy Carney has generated has had more to do with his subjects than himself. He was best known to me for his August, 2008 interview with John McCain, which served the dual purpose of dispelling the notion of an anti-McCain bias (Carney talks about the press’ well-known affinity for McCain to that point), while illustrating the degree to which McCain was becoming desperate in the run-up to his selection of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate.

Days later, in an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Carney took on McCain campaign adviser Nicole Wallace, in an exchange that presciently drew the battle lines for the next several years of our political discourse. Carney challenged the McCain campaign to let Palin talk to reporters, as Wallace mocked the institution of journalism, all while Carney’s future predecessor, Robert Gibbs, watched from the sidelines:

As we all know, Palin did eventually face a mainstream media that asked her “trick questions” like “What do you read,” and the result was the stepped-up effort to discredit journalism that you see today.

That’s why Carney’s supposed “bias” isn’t really the point, here. Until he was named White House Press Secretary, the right didn’t have any problem with Jay Carney. In fact, Redstate chief and CNN contributor Erick Erickson counts himself a “big fan” of Carney’s, whom he called “an awesome reporter. He always played it middle of the road and tried to get both sides.”

Now that Carney is press secretary, his supposed “bias” is irrelevant, but his relationships with his former colleagues are not. Discrediting Carney sets the table for accusations that the White House press corps is going easy on Carney, or that he’s spoon-feeding them stories, and generally reinforces the conservative notion that the mainstream media are a bunch of in-the-tank liberals.

This is perfectly illustrated by Carney fan Erick Erickson, who makes the assertion even as he’s praising Carney as an “awesome reporter:”

Here’s the thing folks: Jay Carney is an awesome reporter. He always played it middle of the road and tried to get both sides, but his biases were always to the left.

See that? Even the most “awesome” mainstream reporter is a biased lefty. How do we know this? Erickson explains that the proof of mainstream media bias is in the fact that Republicans don’t hire them. No, I’m not kidding:

The point here is this: have any major reporters gone on to work for Republicans? The left likes to use Tony Snow as their example, but of course Tony was a well known conservative and Republican, having guest hosted for Rush Limbaugh for a number of years.

But who in the mainstream media ever goes to the Republicans? Linda Douglass of ABC News went with Obama. Carney is going with Biden. What about ABC’s Claire Shipman, Carney’s wife? Do you really think she’s going to cover the political beat fairly with her husband working for Biden? I doubt it.

You might remember Linda Douglass. She’s the former journalist whom Erickson compared to Joseph Goebbels, then falsely accused of making her own Nazi reference. Neither Erickson, nor Newsbusters (who were strangely silent regarding Erickson’s verbal assaults on Douglass) have earned the benefit of the doubt to cast stones at Carney, or the White House press corps.

Time will tell how Carney performs in his new job, but nothing I’ve seen in two years of covering the daily grilling of Robert Gibbs suggests that the press corps has gone easy on him, and if their comments about the challenges facing Carney are any indication, that’s not likely to change.

Still, there were a few signs that drew outrage (faux and otherwise), and one that would have if I’d been able to get a shot of it. After an exhaustive search, here are the Most Offensive Signs at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

Overwhelmingly, the signs at the rally were along the same lines as the Funniest Signs, only less funny. If we were to do a “Most Smug Rally to Restore Sanity Signs,” we would break the damn internet.

There were very few truly offensive signs, though. Believe me, I was looking. Even conservatives I spoke to at the rally (yes, there were a few) thought that most of the signs were funny, and only mentioned one sign that put them off (the one pictured above, photo by Kevin Eder).

I even put out a call to conservatives on Twitter for outrageous signs, but so far, I’ve only gotten these two.

In fact, the number one satirical target of the rallygoers (just ahead of Fox News) was the Tea Party, yet there were shockingly few “Teabagger” references.

There was one sign that would have garnered a Drudge link, for sure. As I left the rally in a crush of hipster humanity, I saw a sign that pictured Christine O’Donnell, and which said “Burn the Witch!”

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to photograph it, as I was carried away from it by the sea of departing rallygoers.

The folks I spoke with at the rally have the right attitude. By demanding that the lamestream media cover offensive rally signs, the “everybody gets a trophy” brand of fairness, all you’re doing is reinforcing the original narrative.

Having said all of that, there were a few signs that were legitimately offensive, and some whose offensiveness depends on the eye of the beholder. Here are the 23 Most Offensive Signs at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

#23 - The Rapture is No Joke (1 of 23)

Next ►

While the punchline here is the signmaker's misunderstanding of a particular Christian doctrine, it could be seen by some as mocking evangelical Christianity. Photo by Jessica Cooper

Even so, I managed to get some great pictures, and I ran into a few interesting characters, including Slate’s Dave Weigel, on his day off, and got his thoughts on the rally. As you’ll see, he was a much better interviewee than evangelical Sithian Darth Vader and not-so-super hero Unemployed Man: (Interruptions provided by Redstate’s Ben Howe and Newsbusters’ Steve Gutowski. Sunglasses by Brittany Cohan.)

Despite Stewart’s inspiring Kum Ba Yah speech, the crowd was clearly an anti-Tea Party lot, but as Weigel notes, they also weren’t buying the disappointment of the “professional left” over President Obama’s first two years in office. The argument can be made that this is the new “middle,” but are enough of these folks sufficiently engaged to make a difference on Tuesday?

Outsize importance will undoubtedly be placed on the size of the crowd relative to Glenn Beck‘s Restoring Honor Rally, a pointless debate that is already resulting in the kind of sniping that Stewart’s rally was supposed to tamp out. For what it’s worth, yesterday’s crowd was definitely bigger and more densely-packed than the Restoring Honor crowd, covering a larger (Reflecting Pool-less) area.

However, the true merit of a thing cannot be measured by how many people  like it. If you want to have the discussion on those grounds, you must first stipulate that Milli Vanilli pwns Muddy Waters. It’s not a tie, but they were both big crowds, both significant events, as was the One Nation Rally.

The debate over crowd size helps to prove Stewart’s point about the current lazy state of our media culture, but he misses an important factor. Kooky kandidates and head-stomping didn’t arise spontaneously from an oyster shell. This is, apparently, what people want because this is what they buy. Even now, there is plenty of substance to be found amid the titillating chum of cable news, but nobody wants it.

Case in point: I have sat through hours of White House briefings, listening as 98% of the questions concern substantial policy or political matters, yet the only clips you ever see on the cable nets are the “Gotcha!” sound-bites. As long as journalism is a primarily profit-driven business, there will be little attention paid to serving the public good.

The plot called for O’Keefe to lure Boudreau, under false pretenses, onto a boat “filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session” in order to embarrass Boudreau and CNN. According to Boudreau, the “script” called for the prank to end with Boudreau in tears, begging to be let off of the boat.

We reached out to Boudreau to see if she had a reaction to O’Keefe’s statement. Her response was brief and to the point: (via email)

“I am not interested in debating James O’Keefe about what his plans were for me on his boat. His statement reinforces what we reported in our documentary.”

O’Keefe’s statement begins by explaining his relative silence on the matter so far:

Now that I’ve had a chance to watch CNN’s “Right on the Edge” documentary, I’m happy to comment. I apologize for not saying anything sooner, but don’t want to comment until I have all the facts at my disposal.

O’Keefe was wise to wait until he could see the documentary before tailoring his statement, but he makes a brave assumption that the “Right on the Edge” documentary contains “all the facts.” Boudreau has stated, in several interviews, that much of the material surrounding the incident has been withheld, ostensibly due to its “graphic nature.”

Boudreau has produced several O’Keefe emails that corroborate the “CNN Caper” document, but O’Keefe offers nothing to support his claim that he rejected the plan. In fairness to O’Keefe, his failure present an authenticatable email that shows him rejecting the idea is not, in itself, proof of anything. Coupled with Boudreau’s reporting, however, it’s difficult to view this situation as anything but a case of “He said, she proved.”

Missing from the segment, though, is the detail that Boudreau gave in an interview with Rick Sanchez. She revealed that the “CNN Caper” document (which has been partially posted online) shows that the “script” called for the prank to end with Boudreau in tears, begging to be let off of the boat. In several interviews, Boudreau has explained that CNN has withheld a lot of material related to this story, ostensibly because it’s “too graphic.” This is a curious explanation, given what they’ve already posted, and the existence of hyphens and asterisks. Surely, they could have been sufficiently redacted to meet the news department’s standards.

Here’s the portion of Right on the Edge that covers O’Keefe:

O’Keefe’s actions take on an added dimension of stupidity once you watch the rest of Right on the Edge, which turns out to be an almost completely uncritical look at a handful of conservative video activists. Abbie Boudreau doesn’t ask anything approaching a tough question. In her defense, Boudreau has talked about how skittish many of the subjects were about participating in the project, and it shows. James O’Keefe’s ACORN cohort, Hannah Giles, even makes it a prerequisite of her participation that conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart (who has denounced O’Keefe’s actions) be present to chaperone the interview. If word got around this close-knit community of people who don’t react well to tough questions, Boudreau might have found herself without anyone to participate.

Even so, she also lets a lot of things slide. Most notably, the documentary never even tries to delve into the legitimacy of this form of “journalism,” an unusual omission from an outfit that has branded itself the last bastion of objective journalism. The film also ignores the homophobia and misogyny of Jason Mattera, while also presenting one-sided clips from his ambush interviews, which don’t always go all that well for him.

That is not to say that the doc isn’t at all revealing. Sometimes, if you can’t push an interview subject, it is better to pull whatever you can out of them, and the activists in Right on the Edge reveal a palpable suspicion of established journalism that viewers can make up their own minds about.

Mediaite has obtained the following statement from Breitbart: (also available on Big Journalism)

I proudly stood behind James O’Keefe on his groundbreaking ACORN investigation. I also defended him when the media, including CNN — during a previous regime, “the Rick Sanchez era” — falsely reported the Sen. Mary Landrieu story as a “wiretapping” plot gone wrong.

In all these cases the left-leaning media exposed its obvious bias against James because of his contrarian point of view and because the targets of his investigations are protected institutions of the Democrat Media Complex.

However, in my dealings with Ms. Boudreau, she and her producer, Scott Zamost, conducted themselves professionally, and I believe James owes them a candid and public explanation.

From what I’ve read about this script, though not executed, it is patently gross and offensive. It’s not his detractors to whom he also owes this public airing. It’s to his legion of supporters.

Breitbart’s critics will, no doubt, focus on the fact that the statement leaves open the possibility that there is an “explanation” for these actions, but given his extreme suspicion of mainstream news outlets like CNN, this is a significant repudiation. Others, myself included, will take issue with his characterization of O’Keefe’s past work. All in all, though, Breitbart shows laudable decency in coming to Boudreau’s defense, and in condemning O’Keefe’s plan.

It is important to note, however, that the qualifier “though not executed” should not be construed as any sort of mitigation. According to Boudreau’s reporting, the only reason it was not executed was because she was warned of the plot, and she told Media Matters that, even then, O’Keefe still tried to lure her onto the boat.

Finally, as an interesting side-note, Breitbart’s statement may well be the first example of a past-tense reference to “the Rick Sanchez era.”

Several prominent conservative media figures have already denounced O’Keefe, including Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell (who called it an “attempted assault”), and leading conservative blogs Redstate and Hot Air. O’Keefe’s high-profile editor, Andrew Breitbart, has yet to weigh in on the controversy, but took steps to distance himself from this incident.

Curiously, Boudreau’s story has gotten little coverage, outside of CNN and a blogosphere that was hungry to gobble O’Keefe up. According to TV Eyes, the only other mention of the story was on MSNBC’s Hardball. A Google News search reveals little coverage by the mainstream press, either. The Washington Post’s Reliable Source blog posted an item, but most of the coverage has been on web outlets. Considering the attention O’Keefe has gotten previously, and the explosive, titillating details of this story, it’s hard to explain why it hasn’t gotten more heat from the mainstream media.

Update: Red Eye Ombudsman (and my friend) Andy Levy points out that I completely missed his commentary on Redeye’s “Halftime Report,” in which he makes many of the points that I made here. He even goes as far as saying that O’Keefe’s plan “might well be criminal.”

While the other Redeye panelists continue to argue the point with Levy, he holds his ground. I deeply regret having omitted Andy’s pitch-perfect commentary, and include it now. (also h/t Johnny Dollar)