Ah, finally, a right-wing site that is appropriately named --- "Hot Air."

Ah, finally, a right-wing site that is appropriately named --- "Hot Air."

Good one!

Isn't Cap't Ed also known as "short bus Ed"?

Latest example: Yesterday, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air --- a blog created by Rightwinger Michelle Malkin and recently purchased for an undisclosed sum by the far Rightwing Salem Communication outfit ---

s/b Salem MIScommunication

I said a long time ago, can these misinformers and liars have some kind of charges brought up against them?

David Brock, the reformed conservative noise-maker, on how the Right has sabotaged journalism, democracy, and truth.

As a young journalist in the 1990s, David Brock was a key cog the Republican noise machine. Writing for the American Spectator, a conservative magazine funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, Brock gained fame for his attack pieces on Anita Hill and President Bill Clinton. Then, in 2002, Brock came clean. In his memoir, Blinded by the Right, Brock admitted that his work was based on lies and distortion, and part of a coordinated smear campaign funded by wealthy right wing groups to discredit Clinton and confuse the public.

Since then, Brock has continued to expose the conservative media onslaught. In his newest book, The Republican Noise Machine, Brock documents how right-wing groups pressure the media and spread misinformation to the public. It's easy to see how this is done.

Fringe conspiracies and stories will be kept alive by outlets like Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, until they finally break into the mainstream media.

Media groups like Brent Bozell's Media Research Center have spent 30 years convincing the public that the media is, in fact, liberal. As Brock says, it's all a sham: "I have seen, and I know firsthand, indeed from my own pen, how the organized Right has sabotaged not only journalism but also democracy and truth."

The Republican Noise Machine

http://www.motherjones.c...republican-noise-machine

MediaMatters.org

http://mediamatters.org/

Noam Chomsky thesis: The Myth of the "liberal media":

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

Good to see that some bloggers on the right are capable of acknowledging and correcting factual errors without descending into sputtering madness...

I think, DES, there are a good number of bloggers and wing-nut followers who simply do not understand the vital distinctions between "election fraud," "voting fraud" and "registration fraud."

That is understandable given the widespread disinformation campaigns by those that do understand the distinction, but willfully choose to misrepresent "registration fraud" by those who deceive ACORN as "voting fraud" by ACORN.

On the plus side, the risk that people like Patterico run in attacking The BRAD BLOG is that their readers will come over here and start to learn the truth; which, in turn, could hopefully lead to their experiencing an epiphany of sorts.

While it is commendable that Morrissey (not the cool singing one) corrected two blatant errors he made, a third error persists.

Morrissey accepts as fact that the criminal defendant - Maria Miles - committed fraud. Given the ease of proving the allegations against Miles, it would indeed be bizarre if her being a fraud isn't borne out.

Yet, in the same post, he takes quotes from the fraudulent Miles, not verified by anyone else, and accepts them as fact. Morrissey block qoutes a passage in which Agent Thelen recounts statements from Miles alleging a sexual relationship between two ACORN employees (Williams & Robinson) and days in which Robinson then simply hung out but got paid on Williams' okay.

Morrissey transforms Miles' claim from allegation to fact when he says: "Charming. What a splendid work environment! No wonder James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles found ACORN staffers to be so helpful at promoting prostitution rings."

This would be like writing a piece stating as fact that Ben Rothlisberger committed sexual assault on the complainants say so. In fact, what Morrissey does is worse because he admits the person who's allegations he uses to smear ACORN is a fraud whereas we still don't know anything about Big Ben's accuser.

The bigger questions that someone as astute as Morrissey should be asking is why Agent Thelen included these wholly gratuitous allegations in the first place. They are not material to the criminal complaint against either Miles or Clancy. The only reason I can think of is that the allegations were included to create a salaciousness to his report so as to secure the kind of coverage Morrissey then supplies. It betrays a bias by Agent Thelen against ACORN that is unbefitting of a supposedly objective law enforcement officer.

The other question is how much money was spent on this "task force" that then only came up with these five minimal violations which are really gimmees?

All excellent points, Macswain. Fine analysis!

Hey brad,

Does your insistence on drawing a distinction between two allegedly felonious employees of ACORN & ACORN itself mean that you'll post a retraction of your conjoined accusations of OKeefe & Breitbart, since it's been reported throughout that OKeefe was acting on his own regarding the phone thingy?
Or will the obvious double standard continue to prevail?

And hey, by the way, did OKeefe ever get convicted of tapping phones?
How about bugging offices?

No?

Wow.
Does that mean you'll go through all your posts and change your false claims into something that resembles reality?
You know, will you show as much integrity as the hotair blogger?

I mean, I really hope this hasn't become a "pride" thing for you--has it?
Where you're so emotionally invested and/or are so committed to slandering those who disagree with you that you can't admit when you've made a mistake and simply correct it?
Because I know you'd never want to compromise the integrity of your readers, since they're clearly only interested in truth if they're reading this blog, right?
This blog isn't just about slamming people on the other side as a cheap substitute for therapy and to try to make yourself--I mean themselves--feel better about not being able to control what other people think, say or do in a hailstorm of fervent intolerance, right? It's above such childishness.
It has moral stan... BWAAHhahahaahahaaaa!!!!!!!!
ROFLLLLLLllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Wiping tears)
Oh, goodness, I almost made it all the way through with a straight face.
Sorry

Speaking of controlling other people, the folks you voted for are considering banning salt in restaurants.
Enjoy that sweet whiff of freedom while you can:
http://consumerfreedom.c...-ban-salt-in-restaurants

What "mistake," Ravensmaid? Breitbart identified himself as O'Keefe's employer --- at least before he denied ever saying it. Breitbart played an active role in propagating O'Keefe's "Big Lie."

Brad never said that O'Keefe was "convicted" for "tapping phones." He described O'Keefe, quite accurately, as an "accused" federal felon.

You have failed to accurately identify a single statement that Brad Friedman has made on this topic which has not proved to be 100% correct.

Your refusal to accept the truth about registration fraud and the fact that ACORN was the victim, as opposed to the perpetrator, is pathetic.

Ravenhairedmaid @ 9 -

So after your spectacular fail (this item happened, as I noted in the "hat-tip", because of Ravenhairedmaid), you're coming back for another helping?

Okay.

You asked, foolishly once again:

Does your insistence on drawing a distinction between two allegedly felonious employees of ACORN & ACORN itself mean that you'll post a retraction of your conjoined accusations of OKeefe & Breitbart, since it's been reported throughout that OKeefe was acting on his own regarding the phone thingy?

Not sure what you're talking about, Raven. The only such "conjoining" was when Breitbart himself agreed with Hugh Hewitt that "Lots of people work for lots of corporations, and do dumb and sometimes illegal things that are not within the scope of their employment. And this was not within the scope of his employment."

If that's the case, as Breitbart agreed, then why has he held ACORN guilty for what a few employees have done (and been discovered and turned in by ACORN themselves)? It's a pretty good question, dontcha think? If ACORN is guilty, then by Breitbart's own standards, so is he, it would seem.

Or will the obvious double standard continue to prevail?

For Breitbart? Apparently so. We have displayed none here, however. You are free to point out evidence otherwise if you can find any. Good luck with that.

Short of that, this is your first warning about posting knowing disinformation here, which is in violation of our posted rules.

And hey, by the way, did OKeefe ever get convicted of tapping phones?
How about bugging offices?
No?
Wow.
Does that mean you'll go through all your posts and change your false claims into something that resembles reality?

What false claims? Please show evidence of same. Otherwise, this is now your second warning about posting knowing disinformation in violation of our rules.

You know, will you show as much integrity as the hotair blogger?

Happy to. Feel free to let me know where I need to make a similar correction to Morrissey's (the one that made you look like a fool, btw).

I mean, I really hope this hasn't become a "pride" thing for you--has it?

Not for me. Perhaps for you? For me it's a "truth" thing, but that may be beyond your scope.

Where you're so emotionally invested and/or are so committed to slandering those who disagree with you that you can't admit when you've made a mistake and simply correct it?

This is now your THIRD warning about knowing disinformation. You have also just defamed me by claiming I have slandered someone. Do anything like this after this note and you will be on moderation and then banned if it continues.

We have very few rules here, I'm sorry you're showing the proclivity to be unable to respect them.

BTW, as to your next post, concerning "the folks you voted for are considering banning salt in restaurants" ... You do realize that I'm based in California, not in NYC where you are pointing to some politicians doing something or other, right?

If you'd like to continue to post here, even things with which I do not agree, you are welcome to. But only if you respect the rules. Do it. Got it?

http://www.palmbeachpost...697.html?cxtype=rss_news

Raven Head @ 10 posts an article of an attempt to ban salt in NY. It says in the first sentences: "He is also following in the steps of fellow food nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg who went so far as to compare salt to carcinogenic asbestos." Ummm...Bloomberg was a REPUBLICAN!

Ms. Raven, as to "the phone thingy", no, the four accused felons have not been sentenced yet. Their lawyers waived pre-trial after the US attorney stepped down(no reason given). His assistant US Attorney Jan Mann is prosecuting now and I don't believe a court date has been set.

Why is RNC big wig Madigan involved in their defense? All four have ties to college level CIA/intelligence programs.

One at least, Stan Dai, is affiliate with FDD(Foundation For Defense of Democracies) some whacked out Israel first bunch with Gingrich, Perle, Krauthammer among its illustrious membership. Dai spent several weeks training in Israel in 2004.

Robert Flanagan(son of prominent LA family, only one from there) and Joseph Basel were the 2 dressed as telephone repairmen. They are all charged with "entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony".

Penalty: 10 years and $250,000.

Ties to The Leadership Institute include ex congressman Steve Stockman who bought O'Keefe his video equipment. Pelican Institute? Not sure what the hell.

Not too Brightbart went on & on about having JO's "life rights". So, the real question is not did one low level punk work for another low level punk. Where did the orders and dollars originate? What did they really want from Landrieu's(member of Homeland security commitee) communications. This story has daddy-long-legs of the Zionist variety.

If a site called "hot air" does the right thing and corrects inaccuracies, what's preventing the NY Times?