Bush's State of the Union 2007

"Congress has changed," President Bush said, acknowledging the new Democratic majority, "but our responsibilities have not." (NY Times)

There was a lot of chatter on the internet after Bush's State of the Union address...

Here are some stories that stuck out to me...

Think Progress conducted a real-time fact-check of this year’s State of the Union address...

VIDEO / LINK: VIDEO: The Annotated State Of The Union

Think Progress also noted Sen. Jim Webb's response...

Transcript:

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

VIDEO / LINK: Webb: If Bush Doesn’t Take The ‘Right Kind Of Action…We Will Be Showing Him The Way’

On a lighter note...

Think Progress and MSNBC's Tucker Carlson (on Hardblogger) note that John McCain had fell asleep...

VIDEO / LINK: TP: McCain falls asleep during the State of the Union?

Tucker Carlson:

"If you’re McCain, who will be over 70 by 2008, you’ll want to make doubly sure to demonstrate your alertness and vigor. You definitely won’t want to slump in your seat, out cold, when Bush starts talking about Iraq. And yet that’s exactly what McCain did tonight, napping on camera for ten agonizing seconds. Lack of self-control? An expression of contempt? Embarrassing in any case."

LINK: Carlson: Lack of self-control? An expression of contempt? Embarrassing in any case.

While McCain slept, Speaker Nancy Pelosi blinked...

"What was worth commenting on, however, was the contrast in blinks per minute between Pelosi and Cheney. While Pelosi clocked a good 25-30 blinks per minute, Cheney barely mustered 3 or 4."

LINK: Watching the SOTU Speech on ABC

And, of course About Political Humor got some great videoes regarding the speech...

"Check out a funny State of the Union spoof video by Bush impersonator James Adomian (a worthy sequel to last year's version), plus watch President Bush talk tough and threaten the world in this remixed version of one of Bush's previous State of the Union addresses.

See also: The Daily Show's preview of the State of the Union address, featuring a matchup between two bitter rivals: Bush and words.

Late-Night Jokes
"President Bush addressed the nation tonight. He talked about how we can save energy, how we can still win the war in Iraq and then gave a beautiful rendition of 'Wind Beneath My Wings.' Randy and Paula were in tears." --Jimmy Kimmel

"Down in Washington, DC, there was the annual State of the Union address. ... The speech was so dull. Behind President Bush, Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney were making out." --David Letterman

Read more late-night jokes..."

LINK: State of the Union Parody Videos

And then this...

"From the official State of the Union Drinking Game...
Every time Bush says:
“nukular” – 1 drink
"Bring it on" = Arm-wrestle the person next to you; loser drinks
Detainees = 1 drink, with your hands behind your back
"illegal immigration" = 1 shot of cerveza/tequila
"sectarian violence" = 1 Car Bomb
“Mark Foley” = one shot of Scotch, aged 16 years
"macaca" = Invite George Allen for a drink - he doesn't have anything better to do
Every time Bush...
praises a Democrat by name = 1 drink
....if that Democrat is not Joe Lieberman = 3 drinks
Every time the camera shows...
a close-up on Nancy Pelosi = 1 shot, taken without moving any facial muscles

Read more at Drinking Game.us, plus check out alternate State of the Union drinking games from political comedian Will Durst and Wonkette. Or if you prefer to cry in your beer in the company of like-minded lefties, you can partake in a Drinking Liberally State of the Union Party, featuring bingo cards.

State of the Union: The Bushism Version
With the help of our Bushisms collection, the San Francisco Chronicle presents an amusing State of the Union address parody, constructed entirely from classic Bush verbal gaffes and other inane presidential utterances:

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens:

This is historic times.

The past is over. There may be some tough times here in America. But this country has gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again...

I think the American people -- I hope the American — I don't think, let me — I hope the American people trust me. Read more...

The State of the Union and Groundhog Day
This one originally circulated a couple of years ago, but is making the rounds again:

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union address occur on the same day. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition of events: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, while the other involves a groundhog."

Read more funny forwards..."

LINK: State of the Union Drinking Game

Just think, he only has one more after this...

-Mr. Joseph

Conservatives Respond To Foley Scandal With Anti-Gay Smears

Think Progress and Media Matters are all over this bit...

Think Progress notes these examples...

Ben Stein, American Spectator:
On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that’s not great. … I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. [Link]

Linda Harvey, WorldNetDaily:
Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected. The problem with homosexuals is that they frequently don’t have common sense and don’t acknowledge appropriate boundaries. Weird sex, public displays of “affection” and nudity, and sex with youth are built into the “gay” sub-culture.

Jonah Goldberg, National Review:
The funny thing is that you would think the left — particularly the gay left — would be a bit more interested in not having 16 and 17 year old teenagers classified as young children for legal/sexual/political purposes. If that were the case, then a whole lot of dirty old men would need to be prosecuted for felonies when they pick up street hustlers. [Link]

Wall Street Journal, editorial:
But in today’s politically correct culture, it’s easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. [Link]

Tammy Bruce, political analyst:
All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive. I mean, is that too much to ask for? [Fox News]

Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy In Meda:
In fact, the entire scandal might have been avoided if Foley’s homosexuality had been exposed and confronted, rather than protected, over the last several years. [Link]

The Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. As ABC News’ Maddy Sauer, who broke the Foley story, said today: “This is an issue about minors and congressional pages that have gone to the Hill to learn about how our country works and, you know, are aspiring to work there themselves one day. It’s just — the story is not about whether the congressman is gay or straight.”

LINK: TP: Conservatives Respond To Foley Scandal With Anti-Gay Smears

Media Matters document this...

From The Wall Street Journal editorial:

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior
Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley
merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those
liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who
tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices,
and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are
these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy
for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's [House] Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] on that one?

The suggestion that the Boy Scouts' ban on gay scoutmasters is grounded in allegations of misconduct is baseless. Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), which held that the organization's "First Amendment right of expressive association" allowed it to maintain a ban on gay scoutmasters, the Boy Scouts issued a press release on June 28, 2000, stating: "We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law." The defendant in the case, James Dale, a one-time Eagle Scout, was expelled from the Boy Scouts in 1990 over his disclosure that he was gay, not over any allegations of misconduct.

On the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN chief national correspondent John King interviewed Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council (FRC), who claimed that the House Republican leadership may not have aggressively investigated Foley's alleged misconduct when it was first brought to Republican leaders' attention months before because "there may have been some fear that they had, in pressing it forward, out of fear of being seen as gay bashing or homophobic because of the orientation of Congressman Foley." In prefacing his first question to Perkins, King said that "pro-family voters" looked to the FRC "for guidance and advice in moments like this" -- suggesting that "pro-family" is a synonym for "conservative."

From the October 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

KING: Tony Perkins, thank you for joining us. I want to begin with a simple question to you. You're a leader of a grassroots conservative organization that a lot of pro-family voters around the country look to for guidance and advice in moments like this. There are conservative activists like [ConservativeHQ.com chairman] Richard Viguerie, conservative groups like Citizens United, who say the Republican leadership blew this; they did not handle this well. The speaker and others should resign from office. Do you think that's the case?

PERKINS: Well, I think it's premature to say whether or not the leadership should resign. I think it certainly raises questions about what did the leadership know and when did they know it. We do know that they had indications that there were improper communications between this congressman and pages as long as two or three years ago. But, I think there may have been some fear that they had, in pressing it forward, out of fear of being seen as gay bashing or homophobic because of the orientation of Congressman Foley.

KING: Well, let's talk about one specific incident. John Shimkus [R-IL], the congressman -- he's the Republican chairman of the Page Board; he oversees essentially the page program. He is -- his job is to protect those kids whose parents send them up to Washington. It's a position of great responsibility.

[...]

KING: Congressman Shimkus went to Mark Foley and said, "Don't do it again." But there's no evidence he called an attorney, no evidence he said, "Mark, you need counseling" -- no evidence -- we know he didn't tell the Democrats, didn't even tell other Republicans on that board. As we speak, sir, John Shimkus is still the chairman of the Page Board. Will you send your child to Washington to be a page?

PERKINS: Oh, I -- there's no defense of this behavior. It's outrageous; it's shocking. But it shouldn't be totally surprising when we hold up tolerance and diversity as the guidepost for public life, this is what you end up getting. A congressman chasing 16-year- old boys down the halls of Congress; it's a shame. It's a tragedy and it does need to be addressed but not just the symptoms here.
We need to go to the source of the problem. And if the leadership was negligent, it should be dealt with and it should be dealt with in the most severe way possible. But what prevented the leadership from acting? Were they fearful of acting because they would be seen as homophobic or gay bashing?
Perkins's comments echoed those of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who said on the October 1 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday that House Republicans would have "been accused of gay bashing" if they had "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's alleged impropriety.

Also, on the October 2 edition of The Situation Room, conservative pundit Bay Buchanan, in faulting the House Republican leadership for not taking appropriate action, explicitly linked Foley's reported homosexuality to his contact with the underage former page. According to Buchanan:

BUCHANAN: John, that was all they needed to know. I mean, I -- I will repeat myself. This is a known homosexual who's writing emails to the home of a 16-year-old boy, asking for pictures. There -- that's all you need to know. It's done.

That is enough to demand that anyone who knew that, who had authority to make certain they shook things up enough, so that they would make certain the pages understood that: We want to know what is going on. We need an investigation. Bring in the FBI. Stop this guy. Make certain that, if indeed he was the predator he could be, he was stopped that day.

On the October 2 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson wondered "how the Democrats ... are going to paint this as a scandal of the Republican Party" and asked Democratic strategist Steve McMahon: "So, the Republican Party is now the party of gay sex, or what exactly is the Democratic line going to be here?" When McMahon responded, noting that Foley was "hitting on teenage pages," Carlson again turned the conversation toward homosexuality:

CARLSON: I'm trying -- I'm trying to figure -- look, I am, as I think anybody who takes the time to read these instant messages from Congressman Foley -- whom I'll say up front I've always liked, you know, nice guy -- they're stomach-turning; they're disgusting; they're creepy as all hell, and he deserves whatever he's going to get. I just wonder, as a political matter, how the Democrats, though, are going to paint this as a scandal of the Republican Party? So, the Republican Party is now the party of gay sex, or what exactly is the Democratic line going to be here?

McMAHON: Well, the Republican Party is the party that thinks that the laws don't apply to them, that the truth isn't important, and that when things like this are brought to their attention, they can sweep them under the rug, whether it's Osama bin Laden threatening to fly airplanes into buildings, or whether it's a member of Congress who's hitting on teenage pages. I mean, this is a -- this is a party that thinks the rules don't apply to them, and I think that's the scandal here. And I think the American public, frankly, Tucker, has had enough.
CARLSON: That's pretty good. Is there in fact -- I mean, just as a rhetorical line there, you know, kind of sodomy, terrorism in the same sentence, you know, good luck with that.

From the October 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

VIQUEIRA: Denny Hastert says he has absolutely no recollection of that conversation. He told me that he may -- Reynolds may have told him, but it was at the end of a long list of legislative items. And I said, well, you know, did that raise any red flags for you? I mean, Mr. Foley has had this reputation. It's been reported that pages were warned to stay away from him. Of course, in 2003, Mr. Foley, there were some questions raised about his sexual orientation as he was preparing to run for the Senate and Bob --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, I remember that story.

VIQUEIRA: So, you know, the question is, well, didn't that raise any red flags for you? And he said, no, you know, they were pretty innocuous messages. All -- the kid, the intern, the 16-year-old, lived in Louisiana and the aftermath of Katrina, it didn't seem like anything inappropriate was going on here.

[...]

MATTHEWS: It is a tricky situation. It has to do with orientation. It has to do with age --

VIQUEIRA: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: -- and adult relationships with kids, which we've sort of grown up to, in our civilization, we don't have them.

LINK: MM: Media conservatives obsess over Foley's sexuality

-Mr. Joseph

Sen. Boxer, former DNC chair McAuliffe rip on "fair and balanced" Fox

Media Matters recorded this brilliantly...

From the September 26 edition of Fox News Live:

BOXER: The Iraqi people have to step up to the plate and they have to defend their own country just as we did. And the American people want them to do it. The thing is we want them to succeed but they have to want to succeed as much as we want them to.

SKINNER: Well, Senator, President Bush would probably say he does have indications that they certainly do want to succeed. Thanks so much, Senator Barbara Boxer.

BOXER: Well, we all want to succeed -- it's our policy -- and I think our policy is not helping matters at all.

SKINNER: OK, well, as you know, the president said this morning the offense is not going to make us less safe -- disagreement with you -- we appreciate your perspective today.

BOXER: I hear that you agree with the president. I'm not surprised, OK.

SKINNER: We're just trying to bring both sides -- Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

BOXER: Oh, you're fair and balanced. Thank you very much.

SKINNER: Thank you very much. Indeed, we are.

From the September 26 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Did the Clinton administration do more than the Bush administration to fight terror? Let's ask former DNC chair Terry McAulliffe. He served as head of the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Now Terry, I've got a $20 bet here with the floor director that you are not going to be on the Democratic talking points and start this by attacking Fox News or Fox reporters. Do I win?

McAULIFFE: Oh, you know I love Fox News -- fair and balanced! Come on, I can't get on it enough!

GIBSON: All right. Good.

From the September 26 edition of Tucker:

CARLSON: It's interesting to see, since I covered Clinton, as you know, and you, for all of those years, it's interesting to see the attacking machine cranked up again. I notice you all are trying to paint Chris Wallace as some kind of -- over at Fox -- as some sort of right-wing lunatic.
You're aware of the fact that Chris Wallace, I don't think, is a right-winger, for one thing, but for another, you know, he had [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld on his show -- and I'm not here to defend Fox; I'm just telling the truth -- and he gave Rumsfeld a hard time about 9-11, too.

Why is it that every time someone calls the Clinton people to account they, all of a sudden, start screaming, "You're a right-winger! You're part of the conspiracy against us!" Why can't you evaluate criticism on its own terms? Why do you need to name-call?

McAULIFFE: I know Chris Wallace. I have appeared on the Fox Sunday show many times with Chris Wallace. Let me be crystal clear, Roger Ailes pays his paycheck, he is a tool for the Republican Party, and that's fine. I still go on his show --

CARLSON: You know what?

McAULIFFE: -- I still like Chris, but he is what he is, and now, let's not deceive ourselves.

CARLSON: That's just -- that's just -- you know what? That's just total -- that's just
McCarthyism. That's so low. It's --

McAULIFFE: Oh, it's McCarthyism?

CARLSON: Yes, it is. It's --

McCAULIFFE: You bet it is. You got the bow tie on too tight today, Tucker.

CARLSON: It's embarrassing, actually. It's embarrassing. I'm serious, Terry. Why can't you just evaluate --

McAULIFFE: Your bow tie's on too tight.

CARLSON: Why can't you just evaluate -- evaluate -- I'm not even wearing a bow tie, man.

McAULIFFE: You're not? Oh, you're out in California now, taking your little dance stuff, you know, so you're not wearing the bow tie anymore?

CARLSON: Look, if somebody -- look, if somebody says something, why not just say, "You know what? That's either reasonable, it's unreasonable, and here is why." Why is it always a personal attack against the motives of the person asking the question? Why is that your style? Why? That's what children do. You're not a child.

McAULIFFE: Tucker, you must be from outer space or you're out in California taking some hallucinogenic drugs. You're telling me about Fox? From the day Bill Clinton became president, it was one accusation after another; all some little two-bit thing after -- so please, don't talk to me about Fox and Bill Clinton. You have no credibility even saying it, and if you want to go back and look at the history of Fox when Bill Clinton was president of the United States -- they are a tool of the Republican Party, which is fine. I still go on their show.

CARLSON: OK. OK.

McCAULIFFE: I love to go on their show -- fair and balanced.

CARLSON: I'm not -- I'm not - I'm not going to defend -- look, I'm not here to defend Fox.
McAULIFFE: But it is what it is. Don't kid yourself.

CARLSON: I'm merely here to attack you. Now, let me -- let me just suggest that this is --

McAULIFFE: Oh, come on, Tucker.

VIDEO / LINK: Sen. Boxer, former DNC chair McAuliffe on "fair and balanced" Fox

-Mr. Joseph

Conservative Attacks on Al Gore's film

Media Matters does great by documenting all these attacks on Al Gore.

Sterling Burnett Attack I: Fox News Dayside
Sterling Burnett Attack II: Janet Parshall's America
Tucker Carlson Attacks Gore
Glenn Beck Attacks Al Gore
and
MSNBC's "Countdown" documents the "swift-boating" of Al Gore

I highly recommend seeing this film. I will see it as soon as I can and I will post a review ASAP. It looks to be very good.

-Mr. Joseph

Brokeback's Unseen Agenda

Media Matters did a study awhile ago regarding the film Brokeback Mountain and the attacks directed at it by Right-Wing hacks WHO DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT.

Here's the results of this study...

From Media Matters...

Conservatives quick to opine on Brokeback Mountain's "agenda," slow to actually see film

Summary: Several television and radio commentators have either hosted debates or openly questioned what they claim are the insidiously progressive goals of the award-winning film Brokeback Mountain, yet many of the same commentators openly admit they have not seen it.
Several commentators on television and radio have either hosted debates or openly questioned what they have claimed are the insidiously progressive goals of director Ang Lee's award-winning film Brokeback Mountain (Focus Features, 2005). But how many of them have actual seen the film? Some media personalities and conservative guests feel free to opine on the film's purported "agenda" to "mainstream homosexuality," while openly admitting they have not seen it.

More than one panel discussing both the merits and cultural implications of the film has featured conservative guests whose knowledge of the film extended merely to what they had read or seen about it. While it is not clear whether MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has seen the film, he has twice featured debates on his show, Scarborough Country, about whether the film advanced Hollywood's "radical agenda." On the December 15 edition of his program, for example, he hosted Catholic League president William A. Donohue, who admitted he had not seen it, opposite US Weekly senior editor Bradley Jacobs, who said he had. On the show, Donohue said he planned to see King Kong (Universal Studios, 2005) instead, asserting, "I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called 'The Gay Gorilla,' " explaining: "[T]hat's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream."
Other networks have displayed a similar pattern. CNN's Larry King Live dedicated the entire January 17 edition of its show to "the debate over gay love and gay marriage" thanks to "Brokeback Mountain's big night at the Golden Globes." Of the four guests, the two social conservatives -- radio host Janet Parshall and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president R. Albert Mohler Jr. -- admitted to not having seen the film. Mohler said that he had read the screenplay and "know[s]" the original short story. Parshall imputed the "chatter" surrounding the film to "the homosexualizing of America."

Fox News constitutes no exception to the trend. On a December 17 Fox News Watch panel that included Fox News host Eric Burns, media writer Neal Gabler, Fox News contributor Jane Hall, Fox News political analyst Jim Pinkerton, and nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News host Cal Thomas, only Pinkerton had seen the film -- still in limited release at the time -- because he "was ordered to see it by Fox News." Yet, Burns felt qualified to ask, "[S]houldn't this movie be more controversial than it is?" and Thomas called it "a wet kiss ... to the gay community." In an appearance on the January 2 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer apparently felt the film -- along with Cuban President Fidel Castro and Iran -- merited one of his three 2006 predictions, prognosticating: "Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theaters by 18 people -- but the right 18 -- and will win the Academy Award." He did not specify who the "right 18" were, nor did he clarify which Academy Award the film would receive.

Some news hosts have also voiced concerns over the film's message and purpose while acknowledging that they haven't actually seen it. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has discussed the film at least eight times on his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, and his cable news show, The O'Reilly Factor. He repeatedly insists that has no plans to see it -- "I want to watch the highlights of the game, not the pup tent" -- but remains adamant that the film wins critical praise because the media "want[s] to mainstream homosexual conduct." John Gibson has joined in on the act, asking a guest on the December 9 edition of his Fox News show, The Big Story with John Gibson, "Which is harder to watch, the pulling out the fingernails of Syriana (Warner Bros, 2005) or [actors] Heath [Ledger] and Jake [Gyllenhaal] enamorada in this?" After he said he received criticism for the remark, Gibson defended his comparison between same-sex relations and torture, stating:

GIBSON: Hollywood may, in fact, want to give every Oscar it can find to the first gay cowboy movie. But I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on. I just don't.
[...]
I had one prominent writer say he wouldn't come on my radio show because I made hate-encouraging speech when I said I couldn't figure out which was going to be harder to watch, the guys smooching in Brokeback or [former CIA operative] Bob Bear getting his fingernails ripped out in Syriana.
I said, hey, I know people who are gay. I have nothing against them, but I don't want to see this movie.

Finally, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, who hadn't seen the movie but "heard it's good," argued on the January 17 edition of The Situation with Tucker Carlson: "[A]t some point, Hollywood should give up its mission as a kind of, you know, evangelist for a political persuasion and just shut up and make the movie."

From the December 15 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough County:
DONOHUE: Well, I heard that from other people that it is, artistically, a good movie.
So, I haven't -- going to see it. Gay cowboy doesn't interest me. I am going to go see King Kong. I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called 'The Gay Gorilla'. But that's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream.
From the January 17 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
PARSHALL: No, I didn't see the film and I'm not at all surprised that out of seven [Golden Globe] nominations Brokeback walked away with four -- and some might say that's an indication of what the Oscar ceremonies might look like later on this year.
KING: Why would you comment on it if you haven't seen it?
PARSHALL: Well, I'm interested in all of the buzz around the film. I'm not the least bit surprised that we're hearing so much chatter. After all, I think what we're witnessing, Larry, is the homosexualizing of America.
[...]
MOHLER: I've not seen the movie, Larry, and that's a matter of decision, not just a matter of chance. Like others, I don't feel any need to see the movie. I have read the screenplay. I know the short story and, of course, I know what the movie is about because it's out there so much in the media.
That's the main issue. I am not a movie critic. I really can't speak to the cinematography. I can just speak to what the cultural meaning of this film is and why I see it as a great challenge.
KING: Didn't the short story move you at all?
MOHLER: Well, no, actually --
KING: For example, you're a reverend. Didn't you have some compassion for what happened to the younger one of the two?
MOHLER: Well, absolutely. You have to feel compassion when anyone feels pain and when anyone goes through that kind of struggle. But, you know, I really am horrified to think about where that story ended.
You know, my main concern, Larry, is not with the gospel of heterosexuality -- even though I think that's very important -- it's with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what I find lacking in the movie, the screenplay, and in the short story is any resolution that really brings these persons to know why they were created and how God really intends them to live, and how they would find their greatest satisfaction in living just as God had intended them for his glory.
From the December 17 edition of Fox News Watch:
GABLER: Well, on the one side, Hollywood is going to say, "It's a litmus test for tolerance toward - toward homosexuals." And on the right-wing side, if indeed they take the bait, they're going to attack the movie and say, "This is another way of -- of advancing the so-called homosexual agenda."
THOMAS: Well, let me take the bait. But I won't go in the direction you're thinking of.
I've been reading the reviews on this, and they're really interesting. You compare this movie with, for example, [The Chronicles of Narnia:] The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, [Walt Disney Pictures and Walden Media, 2005] which just premiered two weeks ago, took in $67 million in its first weekend. Now, we were treated prior to the release of the Narnia movie to all kinds of columns, including by Peter Steinfeld's in The New York Times and other mainstream venues, that this had a subliminal religious message. Lock up your children! They might see Jesus! Oh my goodness, it's terrible what's going on out there. And that's the kind of coverage and reviews that they got.
This thing -- breaking new ground, a love story -- you should go see it. So the difference has an agenda attached to it.
[...]
With the way Hollywood covers religion, it is stereotypical and outrageous. The movie Saved! [MGM/United Artists Studios, 2004] was about a hypocritical, oversexed, (inaudible) kids in high school; an unbelievable bigoted thing. This thing is a -- is a wet kiss, you should pardon the expression, to the gay community.

From the January 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
JIM ANGLE (Fox News chief Washington correspondent): I'm joined by our all-star panel, with or without crystal balls, to find out what they expect to see in this coming year. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, and the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fox News contributors all.
OK. 2006, Charles, what do you see?
KRAUTHAMMER: I see, number one, Fidel Castro dies. I say this not with any inside medical information as a doctor but he's actuarially due. Cuba becomes a free country and a decent one and a favorite American resort.
Number two, Iran reaches the point of no return in uranium enrichment, declares openly it's going to seek and acquire nuclear weapons. [United Nations] Security Council will do absolutely nothing.
To balance the bad news, number three, the [President Bashar Al-] Assad dictatorship in Syria will be overthrown.
And last but not least, Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theaters by 18 people, but the right 18, and will win the Academy Award.
ANGLE: Brokeback Mountain, the movie about gay cowboys.
KRAUTHAMMER: Exactly.

From the December 14 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Okay. You know, it's interesting because the polls show that Americans are going back to church in greater numbers than they were 10 years ago. But I believe that there's a segment of Americans that have -- are rebelling against the no boundaries deal, and they're so fed up that they said, "You know, maybe there's another way," and that's why that's happening.
But in popular culture, things are getting worse. You know, I can give you -- I could sit here and give you examples all day. Let me just give you this example, and this is a controversial example. This gay cowboy movie -- and it's going to win, you know, a lot of awards all over -- and their -- the media is pushing this like crazy. And I couldn't care less about it, to tell you the truth.
I probably will not go to see it, you know, just because I don't care about gay cowboys. I mean, it's -- to be quite frank. If it were straight cowboys, I probably wouldn't go to see it. I saw a lot of cowboys when I was a little kid, I loved the cowboys then. Right now, cowboys don't really mean much to me. So, probably not going to go and see it.
But you're going to see, over the next month, this movie being pushed and pushed and pushed by every media you can imagine. Why? Because they want to mainstream homosexual conduct. That's the goal.

And from the January 17 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: And I get a kick out of Brokeback Mountain. I get a kick -- I'm not going to go see it, because people have seen it. [Legal analyst] Lis Wiehl said it was boring. But if it were -- you know -- if I had gotten good reviews from the people I know who have seen it, I'd go. But, you know, I'm not really interested in sheep herders. They got two sheep herders and two guys, and they're in Montana. I like Montana. Or Wyoming. Maybe, they cross the border here and there. I don't know.
But they're in the tent together rolling around. It's not -- you know, to me -- I want to watch ESPN. OK. I'm not -- the pup tent rolling around -- I want to watch the highlights of the game, not the pup tent. Just me. You want to go? Go. All right.

From the December 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Do you have a sense that this is a -- you know -- an agenda film, that somebody decides we got to make a movie about gay cowboys?
[...]
Which is harder to watch, the pulling out the fingernails of Syriana or Heath and Jake enamorada in this?
And the January 2 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: My Word. I've been getting no small amount of grief about the fact that I've been making fun of Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie. I've been making fun of it because it seems to me to be a movie in defiance of its audience.
I don't think it's going to be a box office hit. It will make no money, at least in Hollywood terms. I'm sure it will be a critical hit. Hollywood may, in fact, want to give every Oscar it can find to the first gay cowboy movie.
But I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on. I just don't.
I had one prominent writer say he wouldn't come on my radio show because I made hate-encouraging speech when I said I couldn't figure out which was going to be harder to watch, the guys smooching in Brokeback or Bob Bear getting his fingernails ripped out in Syriana.
I said, hey, I know people who are gay. I have nothing against them, but I don't want to see this movie.

From the January 17 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, which featured radio host Rachel Maddow:
CARLSON: I'm not attacking any of these pictures or shows on artistic merit. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I've heard it's good. But the point is: Isn't it about time that art was made for art's sake? A; B: Is it not true that Hollywood does have completely different values than most of the rest of America and seeks to use its art to shove those values down the throats of the rest of America? That's just true, whether you agree with the values or not.
MADDOW: How is Brokeback Mountain not art for art's sake? You're saying that it was driven by a political agenda and it's -- therefore, that overwhelms its artistic achievements?
CARLSON: No, I'm actually not saying that. I haven't seen it, and I've heard its artistic achievements are impressive
MADDOW: Right.
CARLSON: And so, you can -- I think you can enjoy it for its own sake. I am merely saying it is used by people with a political agenda -- in this case, its own director -- to make a political point. And it just seems to me, at some point, Hollywood should give up its mission as a kind of, you know, evangelist for a political persuasion and just shut up and make the movie.
VIDEO: http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200005
...

We need a liberal media. Without the moderate open-minded left, this is what we get.

-Mr. Joseph

Conservative Pundits Smear Helen Thomas

From Media Matters regarding the smear campaign against Helen Thomas.

Summary: After the contentious exchange between Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas and President Bush during Bush's March 21 press conference, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and several other conservative commentators rushed to attack Thomas. O'Reilly accused her of "hat[ing] Bush and try[ing] to undermine everything he does," and even suggesting that if he were Bush, he "would have laid her out." Several other conservative media figures -- including Jonah Goldberg, Fred Barnes, Glenn Beck, and Tucker Carlson -- have followed suit, sometimes with highly personal attacks.

LINK: O'Reilly, others smear veteran journalist Helen Thomas over exchange with Bush

Enjoy!
-Mr. Joseph