It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They (the Tea Party) were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates. (The New Yorker) Ed. Note: Emphasis are mine
Though Karl Rove receives a salary from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for his work as a Fox News Channel “political contributor,” his compensation doesn’t end there. The network frequently airs ads by his American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS political committees, as “news,” free of charge.
A review of Fox News Channel broadcasts over the past twelve months revealed that Fox News programs ran all or a significant part of Crossroads ads at least 34 times — an estimated value of more than $3.6 million in free air time. Frequently, the network’s hosts run the ads during Rove’s segments and then allow him to explain and repeat their charges.
On Monday, for example, Fox News aired a significant chunk of a new American Crossroads ad attacking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her handling of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Noting criticism the ad received from conservative columnist William Kristol, host Martha MacCullum asked Rove: “What say you?”
Watch the video:
Continue reading here…
Conservatives are hoping to save Mitt Romney from his failed attempt to avoid a policy discussion about equal pay by feigning outrage over Mika Brzezinski’s pay.
The conservative Weekly Standard, founded by William Kristol, is allegedly making a case about pay disparity out of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, where Mika Brzezinski is paid half of what her male co-host is paid. They write, as if shocked, “Brzezinski’s colleague Andrea Mitchell made this point on air yesterday–that pay disparity exists at MSNBC.” Really? As if it doesn’t exist at every other network? We were unaware that Republicans cared about pay disparity. This is most unusual.
We can only assume this is intended to suggest that liberals are no better at women’s pay issues than conservatives, but if that is indeed the underlying point, it’s an utter fail.
The entertainment business is just that – a business. It’s run by men, it’s a huge industry as far as American exports go. Entertainment/media is a top dog in the business world. MSNBC is not a liberal entity- it’s a corporation under NBC Universal run by parent companies GE and Comcast, and as such, it doesn’t embrace liberal values but rather is guided by the amoral profit motive conjoined to the patriarchal system.
MSNBC saw an untapped market in liberal slanted news after Fox News so successfully absorbed the conservative market, and they jumped on it. They didn’t do it because they have a liberal agenda – they did it for money. And Morning Joe is not a liberal show; it’s named after the Republican host Joe Scarborough.
Women have always been paid less in entertainment. Julia Roberts fought to change that, and made huge strides for female stars, but women still make less than a man of similar star power.
Continue reading after the fold…
Oh no he didn’t!
I can see and hear the blow-back coming down the pike from that statement…
In an interview with Fox News this afternoon, Mitt Romney shot back at critics who complained that he didn’t mention Afghanistan or praise U.S. troops in his convention speech last week, arguing that he focused on issues that are “important.”
Fox News’s Brett Baier told Romney that “several speakers” at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this week criticized the GOP presidential nominee for the omissions (actually it was right-wing foreign policy leader Bill Kristol who started the attacks) and asked him if he had any regrets. “I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out,” Romney said, adding that his speech focused on things that are important:
BAIER: To hear several speakers in Charlotte … they were essentially saying that you don’t care about the U.S. military because you didn’t mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in your nomination acceptance speech. … Do you regret opening up this line of attack, now a recurring attack, by leaving out that issue in the speech.
ROMNEY: I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out. When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military. And I didn’t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing.
Watch the clip:
The war in Afghanistan and the sacrifices made by U.S. troops weren’t important enough for Romney to talk about them in his speech? His speech did mention the military, but only to say that he wants to “preserve” a strong military (incidentally so does Obama). But Kristol’s criticism was not that Romney didn’t mention the military but that he did not pay tribute to U.S. troops who fought or are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But what is Romney’s “commitment to a strong military”? He plans to increase military spending by $2.1 trillion over the next ten years (which the military does not need) without offering a plan to pay for it. That doesn’t sound too much like a strong commitment to the economy.
Conservative columnist Bill Kristol criticized potential smear campaigns on Trayvon Marton from right-wing websites Sunday morning.
Appearing on his usual role as a panel guest on Fox News Sunday, Kristol did accuse the media and activists bringing more attention to the incident as those promoting “demagogugery.” But he then chastised those along his same ideological beliefs.
“It is just demagoguery,” Kristol said. “I think, mostly on the side of those who want to indict the whole society for this death, maybe very unjustified shooting of this young man. And then some counterreaction by some on the right who feel this is unjust and now weren’t going to attack Trayvon Martin, which is really ridiculous as well.”
Kristol also voice concerned over Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, questioning whether the controversial legislation is “sensible.”
WATCH: Video from Fox News, which was broadcast on April 1, 2012.
I got a feeling that Sarah Palin daring comedienne Kathy Griffin to “come to Alaska” (on Fox news no less) didn’t help her “presidential” image at all…
A new poll shows the Mama Grizzly’s popularity among Republican voters reaching new lows. What’s behind the slump?
1. Republicans don’t want her to run
Her “shadow campaign for the 2012 GOP presidential campaign has been almost completely mismanaged,” says John Ellis at Business Insider. She’s been mired in “politically useless controversies,” like her Gabrielle Giffords “blood libel” moment, offered “incoherent” comments on the revolts in the Middle East, and failed to address her biggest issue: “She lacks the experience and knowledge necessary to serve as president.”
2. She’s too polarizing
“It has long been clear that Palin is a polarizing figure amid the overall electorate,” say Chris Cillizza and Jon Cohen in The Washington Post, but this poll suggests she may be just as polarizing for some of the voters she would need the most to win the nomination, should she seek it.
3. Palin has issues with Republican powerbrokers
The former Alaska governor’s problem is “her obvious disdain for Republican elites,” says Jamelle Bouie in The American Prospect. They were willing to put up with her last year, but with the elections looming, the conservative Powers That Be have been “gradually distancing themselves from Palin.” Now it seem that their dislike for her “has trickled down to the grassroots.”
4. Republicans actually never liked her that much
“The conservative Republican honeymoon with Sarah Palin, now widely reported to be over, never really existed,”says Shaun Muller at The Moderate Voice. It was “a mere fig newton of the imagination of neocons with stiffies like William Kristol who believed that the former half-term governor ‘would change politics as we know it.’” Many mainstream Republicans were less than thrilled with John McCain’s choice in a running mate, but they put on a happy face.