Rush Limbaugh's Fake-Out

Rush Limbaugh, who as you know seizes on every opportunity to blast President Barack Obama, ended up with egg on his face when he read an Internet satire piece that claimed Obama dissed the Constitution in his college thesis at Columbia University.

Limbaugh sounded off Friday on Obama's college thesis, titled "Aristocracy Reborn," in which he commented on the nation's Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the distribution of wealth.

The only problem - the report was pure fiction.

When Limbaugh learned the report was a hoax, he corrected the record, alerting listeners that the quotes from the thesis had been fabricated. But he insisted the fabricated thesis was still in line with what the president thinks.

"I don't care if these quotes are made up," Limbaugh said. "I know Obama thinks it."

I guess Rush reads minds and can tell us what a person thinks.

It takes a man to admit when he's wrong or when he's wronged someone. I've seen the president offer his apologies on several occassions. Far be it from Rush to apologize for spreading falsehoods to his flock. He spread lies and fabrications on s regular basis. Need I say more?

"Dithering" Not Cheney's Style

This week former Vice President Cheney accused President Obama of “dithering” on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Cheney made these remarks while accepting an award from a conservative national security group, the Center for Security Policy. The conservative group gave Cheney its “Keeper of the Flame Award” for his stance on security and a strong military and a platform to criticize the Obama administration and its Afghanistan strategy.

History tells me that Cheney would rather make a quick move than think it out. That's how we got into the war in Iraq. Had the administration "dithered" instead of rolling full steam ahead into the greatest mistake in our country ever made, we would not be buried in debt for a war we should never have entered and our fine soldiers and military personnel would not have lost their lives pursuing Bush and Cheney's folly.

Conservative columnist George Will said the Bush administration could have used some “dithering” before they invaded Iraq. Will went on to say “A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.” Will said “for a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action.”

Why are we listening to Dick Cheney anyway? By the way, did anyone protest the award that Cheney was receiving? Keeper of the Flame? Yeah, right.

White House Boys Club? Bunk!

I heard yet another controversy sbout the president on the news. A reporter asked if his all male athletic outings weren't anti-women, leaving them out of networking opportunities. NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie questioned him about this a few days ago, and his reply was "this is “bunk”. I watched the women on the View discuss the issue, some for and some against. I listened to the pundits bat the issue from one to another.

Now the issue is whether or not he should have invited a woman to join him on a golfing outing. (Melody Barnes was photographed carrying her clubs en route to the outing.) Is it a necessary clean-up gesture or not?

Enough I say- Stop the Madness!


Millions of men have their special time with the fellas, at football games, at local bars, at the gym, and numerous places in between. Yes, they aren't the president of the United States, but give the guy a break. He's no more guilty of hanging out with the fellas than most of the men in the real world.

If our national interest can stand a time out for a little game of basketball or golf, then let the president relax with the guys and refresh himself before returning to the fray. He certainly needs some "me" time, just like everyone else.

A FOX in the (White) House News

What would you do with a person who lies, cheats, distorts the truth and obviously works against you at every opportunity? I’m betting you’d call the person out on his/her behavior and have as little to do with them as possible. That the situation with President Obama and Fox “News”.

All year, FOX has worked 24/7 to block President Obama's agenda—repeating lies about "death panels," promoting Tea Party protests, and whipping up fake political scandals.

Now, President Obama is fighting back. The White House communications director said FOX is a "wing of the Republican Party...let's not pretend they're a news network." To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on FOX for the rest of this year.

Democrats often appear on FOX in hopes of reaching out to conservative viewers. But FOX cuts off their mic, distorts what they say, or runs biased headlines at the bottom of the screen. In the end, Democrats always lose on FOX.

FOX insists there's a difference between its news shows and its right-wing opinion shows with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others.

But in August, FOX's so-called news shows "aired 22 clips of town hall meeting attendees opposed" to Obama's health care plans and zero in support. CNN and MSNBC were more fair and balanced.

In another "news" story, FOX passed off a GOP press release as its own research—typo and all.

FOX executives now describe the channel as "the voice of opposition" to Obama's agenda. FOX president Roger Ailes—a former adviser to Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush—said, "I see this as the Alamo."

Whether the media and the public agrees with the President’s stand against Fox “News” or not, I applaud his willingness to bring this issue out into the open and highlight his position that Fox “News” as just an “arm of the Republican Party”.
Meanwhile, Fox ratings continue to soar. Go figure!


Sources: New York Times, New York Daily News, Media Matters for America, MoveOn.org

All Eyes on the FLOTUS

The First Lady, Michelle Obama, is expecting another busy week. How's that possible for a person with "no official duties"?

This week the White House released the much-anticipated official Obama family photo. The portrait was taken in the Green Room of the White House on September 1 by famed Vanity Fair photographer Annie Leibovitz. The seated and beaming first family looks happy and relaxed, with Sasha and Malia Obama each draping an arm over mom and dad. Michelle Obama style-watchers may want to note she’s not in a sleeveless dress: The bare arms in her solo official portrait caused a minor stir when it was released last February.

The portrait adds to a flurry of Michelle Obama publicity this week. On Wednesday she hosted a "healthy kids fair" for approximately 100 Washington D.C.-area schoolchildren on the South Lawn of the White House. During the event, part of her ongoing effort to educate children about the importance of proper diet and exercise, the first lady wowed onlookers by swiveling a Hula-Hoop 142 times before it finally hit the ground. Not quite done there, Mrs. Obama also took off her shoes to run an obstacle course with hurdles.

Also this week, a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that the American people view Michelle much more favorably than they do her husband or Vice President Joe Biden, a change from the numbers just after the first family took up residence in the White House. Approval numbers for the president, meanwhile, have been sliding; the USAToday/Gallup poll notes that Obama is viewed favorably by 55 percent of respondents, down from 68 perecent just after the election.

What's next for Michelle? How about an appearance on late night television on Leno's new show. Mrs. Obama's appearance with Leno is notable but certainly not unusual, as former first lady Laura Bush appeared as a guest on “The Tonight Show” when it was hosted by Leno during her husband's presidency.

All these things might seem like fun, but some of the First lady's time is spent debunking false or misleading information. In a recent blitz of coverage, a minor uproar over the first lady's staff size ensued. One critic at CanadianFreePress.com accused the president's wife of employing an "unprecedented number of staffers" for someone who "doesn’t perform any official duties," while a widely circulated chain email reported that "there has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life." Many other critics of the Obama administration expressed similar sentiments.

Michelle Obama's press secretary, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, confirmed that 24 was an accurate count of staffers working for the current first lady. So just what does a staff of 24 do for Michelle Obama? Well, for starters there are the 32,000 pieces of mail that have flooded the East Wing since Michelle Obama took occupancy in January, but the main official duty of the first lady is to tend to the care and maintenance of the White House and its seemingly endless social functions. Of course some first ladies, like Michelle Obama, maintain a higher profile than others, and with that comes the need for people to help write speeches, arrange travel and security details, handle media inquiries, etc.

As far as Michelle Obama's staff size being "unprecedented" in modern times, this appears to be factually inaccurate. According to the Washington Post, the Bush White House also had 16 people on staff whose official titles included the term "first lady" working for Laura Bush, and a recent AP story placed her total number of staffers at between 24 and 26. The same AP report also noted that Hillary Clinton had up to 19 staffers, while Lady Bird Johnson and Jacqueline Kennedy had 30 and 40, respectively. To that end, Snopes.com, another Web site dedicated to checking the facts on issues prominent in the public discourse, described the claims of Michelle Obama's “unprecedented” staff as "grossly inaccurate" and "on par with her predecessor's."

Just another quiet week in the White House, but I believe Michelle Obama is well suited to handle her "job" as First Lady of the United States.

The Secret Service: Protecting the President

Questions abound about the Secret Service’s ability to protect President Obama. An internal congressional report on the subject was leaked to the Boston Globe. The report says that deep budget cuts, coupled with a drastic increase in threats to the president gives rise to questions about the Secret Service adequately performing its assigned duties. Their mission is to provided protection for the president and other high-profile leaders, protecting the country’s financial machinery, and investigating financial crimes.

Presently, the Secret Service reports to the Department of Homeland Security. The agency was established in 1865 to combat the rise in counterfeiting. After President William McKinley was assassinated in 1901, the Secret Service assumed the duties of protecting national leaders. After Congress passed a law in 1917 making any threat against the president a federal crime, the agency became responsible for investigating such threats.

Reports indicate that threats against president Obama are up 400 percent from the number of threats against former President George W. Bush. The agency’s staff has only increased by 5.3 percent. Hate groups increased 35 percent in recent years and the discontent tired over the election of an African-American president is fueling the rise in threats. The growth of modern technology seems to be enhancing the reach of extremist groups, enabling them to spread their message of hate. The social acceptability of hate today, as demonstrated in the Republican Tea Parties. In addition, the anonymity of the Internet allows an easy exchange of the expressions of hate.

In response to the Boston Globe’s report, the Secret Service issued statements denying any decreased capacity to carry out its missions. It called the report inaccurate and lacking in vital information.

Free Enterprise aka Money Talks-Limbaugh Follow Up

Rush Limbaugh's bid to become a partial owner of the St. Louis Rams failed Thursday, after the NFL-- and many others --expressed concern that the radio host's incendiary commentary about race wouldn't be good for the league. Columnists on the left joke that his rejection is a perfection demonstration of the free market at work, while the right replies with accusations of a political witch hunt. (I thought conservatives were supposed to worship the free market and individual rights).

Some claim the right is being marginalized. The editors of The Wall Street Journal say it's not racism, but Limbaugh's "outspoken political conservatism" that liberals want to censor. "Rush Limbaugh lets his listeners blow off steam and then get on with the rest of their day. But if the people who claim to worry about such things want to see a truly angry right develop in this country, they should continue to remain silent while the left tries to drive Rush Limbaugh and others out of American political life."

At The Root, David Swerdlick says the markets have spoken, and suggests that conservatives swallow the "bitter pill" of their own medicine. "Just like Limbaugh's business depends on white male angst, football is a business that aggressively markets--and guards--a product dependent on black male talent. Limbaugh's ouster wasn't censorship. It was a cartel sensing they'd hitched their wagon to the wrong ass."

At The American Prospect, Adam Serwer tries to cut through the noise. "The players and NFL officials who spoke up didn't complain that Limbaugh was a Republican, they didn't even complain about his 'views.' They complained about actual things he said about black people that made him an inappropriate candidate to own a team in an organization with such a large contingent of African Americans." Serwer says conservatives are too often "incapable of identifying actual racist behavior." And he's unimpressed with the debate so far. "While the right was focused on debunking racist things Limbaugh didn't say, they pretty much ignored Limbaugh's record of racist commentary, which includes not only a habit of comparing black athletes to gang members but a general hostility toward black people."

The editors of the National Review calls the attack against Limbaugh "hateful," and says it's part of Democrats' "McCarthyism" against conservatives. "Baseless accusations of racism are modern Democrats' McCarthyism. And one cannot help but notice that other critics of the Obama administration, such as those who rallied against its health-care power grab over the summer, are being denounced by the same slavish media as racists." Limbaugh isn't racist, they write, but was "punished" for talking about race in ways that were "unexceptional and obvious."


Sources: Liberals Thank the Free Market for Shooting Down Limbaugh's Rams Bid, Mara Gay, The Atlantic Wire

Why the NFL Sacked Limbaugh 27Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

Limbaugh and the Political Left The Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Rush Rammed The Editors, The National Review

Confusion in Dittoland Adam Serwer, The American Prospect

Photo: Huffington Post