The Kansas City Star’s Steve Kraske, BizzyBlog’s Tom Blumer, and BizzyBlog Commenter Joe C. are all dumb as boxes of rocks. They read the following quotes and come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is not going to run for a second term in 2012:
“You know, if – if I feel like I’ve made the very best decisions for the American people and three years from now I look at it and, you know, my poll numbers are in the tank and because we’ve gone through these wrenching changes, you know, politically, I’m in a tough spot, I’ll – I’ll feel all right about myself,” Obama told CNN’s Ed Henry.
“I said to myself very early on, even when I started running for office, I don’t want to be making decisions based on getting re-elected, because I think the challenges that America faces right now are so significant,” the president also said.
“Obviously, if I make those decisions and I think that I’m moving the country on the right direction economically, in terms of our security interests, our foreign policy, I’d like to think that those policies are continued because they’re not going to bear fruit just in four years.”
Seriously. Is there any wonder all you get over at Bizzy’s place is disjointed conspiracy theories, outright lies, clever half-truths, and misleading headlines? Does Steve Kraske know he’s stooped to this level? Damn, people. Reading comprehension. Try it on.
The President is clearly saying that he is more concerned about correcting the problems of the country than getting re-elected. He’s not saying he WON’T RUN! That’s the headline, but Kraske came up with “Obama says it: There’s a chance he won’t run in 2012″. You could have guessed that this is now running through Free Republic and other wingnut forums like castor oil through a bad bowel movement.
I’m surprised we didn’t run into any of these three in line at CampStupid.
Listen. I’m going to make this easy for you – and possibly profitable. I’ll bet you a $100 each that Barack Obama is the Democratic Candidate for President in 2012. Take me up on it in the comments.
Consider this my blood curdling scream or whatever. Tom Blumer, our favorite wingnut lunatic faux financial blogger hailing from the southwest corner of the state, has what he thinks is a compelling post up that claims he’s settled once and for all the issue of whether Fox News is fair and balanced or not. He claims they are and he can prove it. Surprise!
Aside: I once called Tom a motherfucker to make a rhetorical point. One he has not been able to defend as yet. He took it personally having thought I was actually calling him names and hasn’t forgiven me, despite my continued reminders that it was a rhetorical point. Tom can be kinda thick that way.
Anyway, so Tom’s big evidence that settles the fair and balanced question? An article in Forbes by S. Robert Lichter. Yes the initial as first name was your first clue. Blumer, surely knowing he’d get called out, even points out that SourceWatch lists Lichter and his organization that conducted the “study” (CMPA) as being far from unbiased. Founded in the mid-80s, CMPA got it’s original seed money from solicitations by Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. Since founding, the organization has been very secretive about it’s funding, which should raise several warning flags (as Sarah Palin would call them).
It’s very clear that right-wing foundations and organizations are who are funding CMPA’s work. The list of organizations that CMPA funders fund reads like a who’s who of wingnuttery: AEI, PNAC, Heritage Foundation, Hudson Institute. Politically, attacks on PBS in 1992 and the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 should tell you pretty much where they stand. Tom can dismiss using the work of SourceWatch as “paranoia”, but I’d argue the only paranoia is his in hoping readers won’t connect the dots. Normally when there are this many dots to connect Tom is bizzy in the basement trying to figure out who the terrorist is.
Lichter does give fair disclosure in his article that he once worked for Fox News (warning flag!). He doesn’t, oddly, give fair disclosure that he is the freaking President of the organization that did the study! It’s mentioned in his bio at the end of the article, but not disclosed as he pimps the CMPA study. This is something Blumer would jump all over if he had his media accountability hat on. He tends to take that off when he’s going wingnut.
There are a few things wrong with this “study”. First, it only compares ABC, NBC, and CBS evening news program to the first 30 minutes of Fox News’ Special Report. Ever hear of Fox News Special Report with Brett Baier?
Exactly.
To compare a small fraction of the content on the “Fox News Channel” and then claim that “Fox News” is fair and balanced is a complete joke. It ignores the fact that the shows that every HAS heard of like Beck, O’Reilly, and Hannity are what gives the network it’s decidedly conservative bias. How do you ignore 90% of a channels programming in your “analysis” and go on to claim to have generated conclusions about bias? Seriously. It’s laughable on it’s face. Not only that, but it gives Fox huge cover – and as a former employee Lichter may well know this – to toss softballs for 30 minutes a day in order to be consider fair and balanced overall.
It’s a total sham. Add it all up and you get a wingnut funded media monitoring organization providing cover to a wingnut media outlet. And as Eric Boehlert at Media Matters points out, Lichter actually even concedes that Fox News is more biased against Obama in it’s “straight news” coverage. Any thinking person wouldn’t need Media Matters to tell them Fox News is not legit, but they do it any way.
Game. Set. Match.
Newsbusters ahoy! Boo Hoo. Ouch.
PS: Whenever BizzyBlog Boy Wonder Tom Blumer says things like “Using a methodology that would be difficult to refute” you already know how easy it’s going to be to refute.
I thought the H1N1 vaccine was a plot to kill us, so we shouldn’t want it. Or was it a socialist scheme to brainwash our children? No, today it’s a scheme to favor those black kids in public schools over conservative brainwashing….er….I mean those precious home schooled balls of joy who aren’t around other kids and can’t infect huge numbers of children if they get the flu!
I am a patient adversary. As such, I will wait patiently for the opportunity to wage the war of Armageddon against these hypocritical brood of vipers…and oh what a glorious war that will be.
Despite his inability to apologize for intimating the current sitting President of the United States was a terrorist, Tom continues to demand MY apology for creative use of the English language to make a point. Yes. I once and often called Tom Blumer Tom “Motherfucker” Blumer. To make a point that he is still incapable of grasping. It’s called rhetoric. Smart folks get the shit. Ignorant wingnuts apparently do not. (Actually if you Google Tom and motherfucker it’s the first result. Same thing for Tom Blumer motherfucker. No telling who would do that, but we own it here at Plunderbund. Hell, if you Google just Tom Blumer it’s on the first page. Sorry Tom. You should have given in long ago, buddy. All your Google are belong to us!)
So to make sure that my freedoms are kept intact from the likes of these facist wingnut punks I of course screen capped it all for you guys to see. I think I make a good point about Tom’s buddy Rose and the comments regarding Democrat policies doing the opposite of what they say. You decide (and not the fascist known as TMFB, or Tom “Motherfucker” Blumer):
Still awaiting the several public apologies necessary to regain any blogging credibility whatever – other than Freeperville and NewsBusters, of course. They love him there! Tom doesn’t appear to want any. Douchebag.
Kinda like a brain fart…for blogs. I was confused while reading the latest post over at Tom Blumer’s place bizzyblog.com. I couldn’t make sense of the post at all. It’s down now and I guess wasn’t meant to be seen. I only wish the contents were more juicy.
He’s at it again. Though quiet mostly just after the New Yorker cover, Tom Blumer is “bizzy” trying to hint that Obama is a terrorist. Wink wink. Nudge nudge:
Here’s more proof (as if needed) that the ingrates who don’t like how I use Barack Obama’s middle name don’t appreciate the favor I do for him on a mostly-daily basis.
Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters reports that columnist Thomas Friedman of the quickly-contracting New York Times told Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer the following:
I was in Cairo a few weeks ago. And one of things that was so striking is how impressed Egyptians were, simply with the prospect that after 9/11, Americans might actually elect a man whose middle name was Hussein.
Well, if Egyptian pride is to mean anything, Americans simply must know that the presidential candidate with the middle name Hussein actually HAS the middle name Hussein.
I am pleased to continue providing such a valuable service, and encourage others to assist in this important endeavor. :–>
Since he conveniently ignored the New Yorker story, I thought I’d make it easy on Tom and provide him with a nice site graphic he can use. Feel free to download and display proudly on your site, Tom. You motherfucker you. 160 pixel width, which I think will work perfectly on BizzyBlog.com.
Tim is obviously having a lot of fun being back at it. Taking shots at Blumer is something I support fully. You have to see his featured post image on the front page:
