During a dynamic and lively speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday, Sarah Palin poked fun at New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign to reduce obesity by limiting the availability of large sugary drinks.

Halfway through her speech, while describing exchanging guns with her husband Todd for Christmas, the former Alaska governor pulled out a Big Gulp from behind the podium, smirked, took several sips, and remarked, “Oh Bloomberg is not around, our Big Gulp is safe! We’re cool. Shoot, it’s just pop!”

For three years, you sit around and get fat. For one year, you sweat it out in training camp. Then for 12 hours tomorrow, you’re in a heavyweight fight. Today’s your last chance to talk trash.

TUCKER CARLSON AND NEIL PATEL: Wave goodbye to the Obama media

By tomorrow night we’ll likely know the name of the next president. But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. They’ve disgraced themselves.

Who makes the charges? The worst political reporters in America.

14 months ago, Tucker’s Daily Caller dug up and then featured Mike Tyson’s frat-boy comments about Sarah Palin. Mike thought it would be righteous if a certain conservative politician had sex with a well-endowed black man:

Mike Tyson: Sarah Palin met ‘the wombshifter’

. . Tyson took a few shots at Palin, boasting about interracial sex and the allegation that Palin had an affair with former NBA star Glen Rice.

“Glen Rice is a wonderful man,” Tyson said. “He’s a wonderful guy. You want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman getting up … in there. Pushing her guts up in the back of her head!”

This is the politics Carlson et. al. feature in their internet fishwrap. As far as I know, the ‘wombshifter’ is still the most popular piece they’ve ever posted. Clearly, other outlets are not as honorable as they are, the pundits who constructed a headline with Palin’s dented uterus:

Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.

Consider Benghazi.

Consider him. First we get a hold of Ben’s urologist, Ray Mancini. Then we ask: Dr. Boom Boom, how likely is Ben to injure, say, Phyllis Schlafly?

Governor Moosemeat had a bad media day. Everywhere the subject of Sarah went, the insults followed. First, CNN mocked her:

I’ll be damned if I’m going to let a bunch of twisted sex perverts and their bisexual, jiveass negro of a President run their sick agenda on my country. Let’s all go to Chick-Fil-A every chance we get and make sure it’s a winner.

FinickyGreek 3 hours ago

Then Dick Cheney trashed her. Asked about the serious business of picking vice presidents, saved-by-the-heart-of-a-gay-Guatemalan-blow-job-champion Richard called McCain’s choosing of the calisthenic tundraclown “a mistake”:

Cheney would not comment on what he told Romney and Myers, but he was harsh in his assessment of McCain’s decision to pick Palin.

“That one,” Cheney said, “I don’t think was well handled.”

“The test to get on that small list has to be, ‘Is this person capable of being president of the United States?’”

Cheney believes Sarah Palin failed that test.

“I like Governor Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She – attractive candidate. But based on her background, she’d only been governor for, what, two years. I don’t think she passed that test…of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake.”

Sarah Palin hasn’t been interested in governing anything since she quit on her home state. So, in Dick-world, she’ll never be “capable of being president of the United States.” Thwack. Commenters mostly piled on the put down. But some fans of the famous shrill faced off with the pack:

What a total moron you are to actually post as :God” who you probably spit upon with your disgusting sexual habit, and body eroding weed. Take another hit of Mary Jane and kill your brain cells more along with the rest of you sick entourage and voters so the rest of us will be rid of you perverted filth.

Posted by: DJ | 3:28 pm

Just how bad is the Romney campaign? It’s hard to say. How do you gauge a trail of warmwater puke? By distance or volume?

These campaigns all have their strengths and weaknesses. The remarkable thing about Romney’s is its 360-degree Achilles heel. The candidate is a terrible speaker, he’s unlikable in person, he doesn’t interest the base, he refuses to address any issue that voters are interested in, and he’s paranoid and secretive about himself. Throw in he’s richer than most porn barons and he gets his politics the same way the rest of us get cologne samples: from bogus magazines. And you, Republicans, have got yourself one stinking candidate.

You would think these alarming facts would rally the believers to his side. You’d think it would make the GOP faithful defend him with every bone in their bodies. Everybody all in, do or die, with fangs bared and instincts razor sharp-ed. Instead, something entirely different has happened. They’ve gone hapless, limp. They’re stupor-stricken. They’ve been Mittified.

“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,” [Eric] Fehrnstrom responded. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”

Eric really isn’t this stupid. He’s just that sick. He’s spent too much time up close and personal with the Typhoid Mary of Manageitis. The candidate is a continental weather front of business entity. A middle-of-the-menu marathon of oatmeal and 1% milk. A Beacon of Industry (god rest his soul). And Eric is now desperately ill. Ask that sparkplug Dilbert, he knows of what I speak.

[Chuck] TODD: He agrees with the president that it is not [a tax], and he believes that you shouldn’t call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct.

Brains. Romney politely went everywhere the next day to label the ACA mandate a ‘tax.’ This electrified the campaign in the only way a talking mackerel can. You really should tell your guy what you want, Mitt, before you throw him out there. Do you know what you want? Do fish have feelings?

“There may have been a thought at the time that [Romney] could be part-time. It was not part-time. The Olympics was in a shambles,” [Ed] Gillespie told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“He took a leave of absence and in fact, Candy, ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to February 1999 as a result,” Gillespie said.

Ed said this more than once. So it’s spreading. Either the CEO can’t manage his people, or he’s contagious. If you’re keeping them around to harvest their suitable organs, Mitt, forget it. It’s too late.

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: “Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. … Come on, why? That’s a stupid question.”

Even McCain? Good lord. Well he’s pretty old, and I don’t figure his immune system for much by now. Btw, if a major Republican personality had paid McCain this same compliment in 2008, John would have popped up on the bastard’s doorstep and beat him into a hamburger patty. Mitt will have Eric call and relay the campaign’s thanks.

Marco Rubio has a shot at becoming Mitt Romney’s running mate. He’s the Tea Party’s hottest star. Pundits say the Cuban senator would make a great VP choice: young, handsome, Southern and loaded with anti-government spunk. Rubio on the ticket could pay all sorts of dividends come November.

Then again, Republican candidates pick lousy running mates. They love morons. Remember Dan Quayle? Young, good looking, relaxed and Midwestern as opposed to snotty and Kennebunkport. Dumb as cold steel. The only thing that prevented Dan from scuttling the 1988 election was that the Dukakis campaign proved to be even less wise.

Sarah Palin, four years ago. Young, good-looking, cheery and fun-loving, not much Unca VC Rage. A needed breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, the campaign was deep underwater and promptly rolled over, bobbing limp and face down for the final months. Sarah suffocated McCain’s last hopes. Still, she provided the political world with plenty laughs, a sacrifice she makes even today.

Cheney, honestly, was an historically bad pick. Someone who’s nearly instantly despised by the American public and stokes the worst incompetent, murderous instincts of a bad president rates a disaster. Dick will be a major reason why the Bush administrations will long be considered blood-shedding disasters.

So what about this Rubio? I wonder if there’s not something wrong with him. I’m thinking the guy is stupid. That would pretty much make him a lock for Romney’s running mate, of course.

How will the Mittbots spin this? Rubio bought a house and threw it on the foreclosure bonfire. That’s not a good idea. It’s worse after you argue the economy suffers because of irresponsibility and greed. But rather than honor his politics or financial commitments, Marco just stopped paying his mortgage.

Maybe then this is not the height of scumbaggery any more, ripping off the straight-shooting Christian bank community? Maybe this is a sign of Rubio’s shrewd business sense, or something.

Does Paying Your Mortgage Make You a Good Person, or a Stupid Person?
Moneyland/Time Magazine | By Brad Tuttle

If your home is underwater—meaning you owe more on your mortgage than the property is now worth—simply walking away may make the most business sense. Considering the ongoing foreclosure mess, it would seem easier than ever to just stop paying the mortgage and enjoy what amounts to “free rent” until the lenders get their paperwork in order . .

See? It’s clever to cheat the banks. Rugged individualism. Why doesn’t everyone do it?

. . 1) they love their homes and don’t want to ever lose them; 2) they believe the real estate market will rebound and their homes won’t be underwater for long; or 3) they think that paying the mortgage is the right thing to do.

Obviously, that’s not Marco. He’s too smart for that. But maybe not.

Rubio sought to cast the foreclosure issue as a simple misunderstanding; “There was a disagreement with the bank about how much the monthly payments were,” he told Baier, adding: “And it all got confusing.”

The future vice president couldn’t understand his mortgage.

BANK: You owe us two thousand dollars a month.

RUBIO: What?

BANK: Two thousand dollars. Per month.

RUBIO: What?

So the bank took his house. Also, he bought it with David Rivera, which was dumb.

Conservative writer S.E. Cupp waited a few days to weigh in on the Hilary Rosen/Ann Romey debate. Between the lovely mansion mommy and the lesbian grotto shrew, S.E. favors mommy. Actually, she favors mansions — more on that later.

But let’s cut to the chase, friends. S.E. Cupp is a fool. Facts are facts. It’s frankly boring she’d love the Romneys so well because she’s paid for the support. The way she loves Ann, however, is terrifically bimb-tertaining.

We could have predicted it. S.E. frequently finds ways to make readers wince. This, below, was a face-palmer of hers from a couple years ago:

Manhattan Love Story
Help! I am a hip, young New Yorker. I am not supposed to have a crush on Mike Huckabee.
By S.E. Cupp| Slate | Dec 5 2008

There he is on the front page of his eponymous Web site, lovingly fingering his bass guitar in the gently worn leather boots of a man who lives to rock. Over the past few weeks, he’s been crisscrossing the country in a fully appointed tour bus that delivers him to throngs of adoring fans and groupies who eagerly await an autograph, a photo, and—if they’re lucky—maybe a few licks on the guitar.

That’s Cupp’s habit. She shocks her true cosmopolitan with a pedestrian reflex here and there. On the way to an Icelandic/Argentinian fusion tapas tasting, she’ll land at McDonald’s. “Here I am with Chicken McNuggets! Can you believe it?” Her mind and instincts are as sharp as any Columbia professor’s, you should know. If only the academics were as hungry to know the limits of the world. She walks old absinthe gallery reading rooms, polishing anti-Bolshevik propaganda with an X-Acto and a pen. But when Mike Huckabee picks up an electric bass . . *squeal*. Really, she’s more surprised than you. She’s from New York, you see.

. . I fantasize about tripping tourists who insist on walking three-wide, arm in arm, at a glacial pace on a narrow sidewalk. I routinely have cereal and paper towels delivered, and I haven’t seen the inside of a washing machine in a decade. I’m also in my late 20s, which, coupled with my hip address, ensures that my taste is well-seasoned, appropriately edgy, and probably better than yours.

As if the glasses weren’t a hint.

I will obsess over anything Ricky Gervais does. I can name at least 10 boutique vodkas. My music interests are sufficiently sophisticated that I can condescend to most other age groups with authority. Finally, I’m also a grad student—at NYU, no less—so I’m supposed to be one of those cosmopolitan academics who have designer eyeglasses, a subscription to Artforum, and a ready collection of aphorisms to quote from the likes of Foucault, Derrida, and Sartre.

The Derrida aphorism bimbo. What a gift. Thanks, Republicans, for this newfangled thingamaperson you’ve invented, the uppity airhead. Thank you for Sarah Palin who lectures us about Paul Revere so that we may edit his careening Wikipedia entry. Thank you for Michele Bachmann brandishing glass-eyed chootspah and reminding us that slave owners worked slave-like to end slaveishness. Thanks, thank you, thanks a jillion.

More of the Cupp magic?

Generational Racism is Old and Tired
S.E. Cupp | Townhall |Sep 23, 2009

Jimmy Carter is 85 years old. Dave Letterman is 62, Nancy Pelosi is 69, Maureen Dowd is 57, and Al Sharpton is 54.

. . We talk about race in blunt and unthreatening terms when race is an issue. And when it isn’t an issue, well, we don’t pretend it is.

Not so with the aging liberal cognoscenti, which, as of late, would be better labeled the “ignoscenti” for some of the baffling oddities they’ve uttered. For them, race is simply everywhere. It is hanging from the trees and falling from the sky. It’s in the air, in the water, it is both viscous and fluid, and permeates every willing orifice of every fertile sponge.

Sponges are a horny sentient lot, I know. Talking is Cheaper than Doing . .

“It’s one of those feel-good things that divide liberals from conservatives. Liberals want to talk. Conservatives want to do.

John McCain’s jaw-dropping afternoon statement Wednesday that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington and work on fixing the country’s economic crisis sounded like someone drawing a saber, getting ready to charge the enemy, yelling ‘Who’s with me?!’ . . it should have forced Obama to mount up and join McCain.”

Alaska is the New Kansas . .

“But the values there — self-reliance, a respect for the land and its resources, and independence — are ridiculed by liberal outsiders who want to paint them as out-of-touch and backwards, with the kind of ethos embodied by an oinking Ned Beatty or a tire-burning Dale Earnhardt Jr., Sarah Palin refuses . .”

Quote Sarah: “Squeee . .” Quote S.E.: “Left-wing women: Stop impaling Palin.“ Southern hospitality confuses.

Much of life is confusing, for most of us. What to think of Ann Romney? What about her? Heck, that’s a no-brainer. That’s why S.E. likes her so darn much:

The smartest choice Ann Romney made
There is no shame in marrying up
S.E. Cupp | N.Y. Daily News |Apr 18 2012

As a thirtysomething, city-dwelling, hypereducated, independent-thinking woman, I suppose I should recoil at the idea of one day getting married, quitting my ultracompetitive job and staying home to raise my brood of germ-carrying moochers.

But as I sit in a cramped New York apartment, surrounded by bills, drowning in a sea of deadlines, the conventional life of a stay-at-home mother actually sounds pretty nice.

I’m so amazing. But I’m so, like, amazing isn’t for me. What a surprise.

. . while liberal women may praise Ann for (at least) getting herself an education, where is the praise for Ann’s best decision of all — to marry well? . .

If Democrats insist that women need Obama to take care of them, then why shouldn’t women also feel compelled to consider how their future husbands will take care of them? What’s the difference between the feminists’ political marriage to Obama and Ann’s marriage to Mitt? Both choices are predicated on who will be the better provider.

Let’s just admit that politics, money and love are all the same. S. E. sounds like your typical lazy urban intellectual catwoman. Bring it home Zsa Zsa:

The feminists may wish otherwise, but little girls want stability and security, not state-sponsored welfare. For choosing a life partner who could give her that, Ann Romney is a great role model.

This is S.E.’s big point. It seems to be the point of her whole career. The apotheosis of the post-modern woman’s hopes and dreams would be a little girl.

Gen. George Patton, on the gender war:

NATIONAL REVIEW
Will Maher Go the Way of Olbermann?
By Victor Davis Hanson | March 17, 2012 6:11 P.M.

David Axelrod’s moral-equivalence argument that Limbaugh’s smear is worse than Maher’s because the former is both more influential and more identifiable with Republican circles is a sad sort of sophistry. Limbaugh may have a larger audience, but I suspect if you googled “Rush Limbaugh” and compared it to “Bill Maher,” the so-called hits would be about the same . .

1.)

2.)

Look! Miss Tiara Borealis with the Klondike Parkaboobs wants to pay tribute to her bestest new friend, Andrew Breitbart. It is very great and sincere. It is touching.

Yes, Sarah? What is it? You’d like to pee his name in the snow?

PALIN: BREITBART IS HERE
by Sarah Palin | Breitbart.com

There is a new street art poster that’s being emailed around and will no doubt eventually be spotted on a street corner near you. It’s a gritty black and white image of Andrew Breitbart looking both battle-worn and ever vigilant with the caption: “BREITBART IS HERE.”

Those three words express the instant connection many of us feel for our fallen friend. They express our identification with him, and our need to continue his fight for the good of our republic.

Terrific. Breitbart’s own graphics lackeys from Breitbart’s own free-market beehive ripped a street poster right from their iMacs. You can see it beneath the high tension wires in your e-mails. In between flaying the homeless for black market kidneys, feel free to pass it along to everybody in your heroin den. WAR, Megyn.

Breitbart’s most immediate mission was the belated vetting of Barack Obama. This obviously is an issue very near and dear to my heart.

That is funny. You’re a nobody from nowhere who ricocheted between 5 colleges before getting a degree in “Who The Fuck Cares?” As Mayor of Wasilla, you bankrupted your town. As Alaska Governor, a state with fewer people than San Jose, California, you were cited for ethics violations and then quit. America believes your choice as the GOP’s 2008 nominee for Vice President was an epic and terrifying blunder.

And what’s this that’s so important to you? Vetting our president? Everybody knows you’re an imbecile. You have neither the talent nor the credibility, Governor.

Oh, and here:

Pictured (l to r ): premise, conclusion

Shorter Sarah Palin, on Fox News:

“Barack Obama would have us travel back to a time before the Civil War where we could lynch him.”

Look at today’s lectures on fair play, they are everywhere. Lucky me, I’ve been reading how Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh are the same person. You follow these rants, and they go: “These two guys, they’re identical. Bill Maher is a hideous misogynist, and Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer — who, by the way, carries enough of God’s good grace to manage an apology when he’s made a mistake. See?”

Oh, yes. Simple as could be. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin nasty things, Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke nasty things. Maher is evil, Rush is a victim. Fifty-fifty, even-steven, comme ci comme ca, wang-chung. When two different guys say roughly the same things, it’s a wash. By someone’s definition, the two statements communicate the exact same thing.

Let’s see if I’m at all following this. I remember May 1, 2003. George W. Bush stood aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and said of the Iraq War, “Mission Accomplished.” At the exact same time, watching the spectacle on TV, I thought about Karl Rove’s hard-selling the war to Americans. I mumbled to myself: “Mission Accomplished.” It’s weird how everybody chose to criticize George, instead of me.

It’s some sort of mystery how the exact same things end up different. It’s unfair, really. For instance, Bill Maher is a foul-mouthed stand up comic. And yet, unlike Rush Limbaugh, he’s not the leader of the American conservative movement or the Republican Party. While people will listen to Bill for his opinions, there aren’t millions of people who hang upon his every word. No sizable chunk of America re-posts, re-quotes and dittoes his every syllable because they believe that Bill is always right. Somehow, nobody thinks that Bill Maher is always right.

Also, unfortunately, people of similar politics may differ with Bill Maher. Plenty of people have criticized Bill for his opinions. Thankfully, this isn’t the case with Rush. Even when — especially when – you’re a powerful Republican congressman or senator, if you criticize Limbaugh, you write your future obituary.

Congressman Phil Gingrey from Georgia, for instance, mistakenly said:

“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party.”

. . then had to beg for a phone line into Rush’s radio program, to say:

“I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, … that I regret those stupid comments.”

Whew. Representative Todd Tihart of Kansas once mis-stated:

“No, no, he’s just an entertainer.”

. . then had to trot out his spokesman to correct his near-fatal mistake:

“The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America . . “

Even the pretend leader of the Republicans, GOP Chairman Michael Steele, nearly bought the farm:

“Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.”

. . until he genuflected, with humility:

“I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh… I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership…. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking.”

It’s a shame no one’s had to apologize to Bill, the comic, to prevent his professional standing and political power from being destroyed. I doubt Maher would be interested in such games, anyway, to his discredit.

And it’s particularly sad that no one thinks Bill Maher is a figure worth deifying. Though he’s practically Rush’s twin, nobody has nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. No man, or university, or foundation, has ever written an equivalent to this on his behalf, a letter to the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Institute:

Dear Dr. Mjos:

Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

We are offering this nomination for Mr. Limbaugh’s nearly two decades
of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all
mankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. We fervently believe that these are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world.

This says something about us, doesn’t it? The comedian will somehow never win a Nobel Peace Prize. This is shocking. It’s as if these two men, Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh, had nothing in common at all.

Look who’s pulled on a pair of big-boy pants! Tucker Carlson. He of the sophomore Ivy League bow-tie and fraternity sneer has decided he’d like to try something new. He’d like to take a crack at being the man. Good for you, Tucker.

Try something simple in these first heady days, buddy. Chop some wood. Barbecue something with a hide. You know, take on a task that’s small enough to build your confidence. Rearrange the tool shed. Don’t go all crazy and . . what’s that? You’d like to destroy Media Matters? By doing a giant expose’ on them? Dear me. And after you’re done with them, they’ll be nothing but whispers and bones. I see.

Yes, well, that’s a bad idea. For all sorts of reasons. The first of which is that you’re an idiot. The second of which would be you’re as tawdry as hooker’s lace. Put those two together, and you get one piss-yellow journalist.

Your idea of “reporting” looks like “Mike Tyson: Sarah Palin met ‘the wombshifter’”. A Daily Caller traffic-beggar, the piece you defended as legitimate Sarah Palin news focused attention on a rapist’s comments about a celebrity politician who may or may not have dated a basketball player:

“Glen Rice is a wonderful man,” Tyson said. “He’s a wonderful guy. You want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman getting up … in there. Pushing her guts up in the back of her head!”

I’m betting that article got more hits than any other in your website’s one year history. That’s why you went out of your ecstatic way to go on TV and whine at Greta Van Susteren like a hot teen about the “controversy.” The only reason for featuring the lurid comments, Greta, was that I was appalled by them. That’s why we appended a warning to the post saying “these quotes are bad” long after it went viral. Some dog took a sizable crap on my lawn this morning, so I saved it, Greta, and brought it into the studio for you. These are the same habits the Wall Street Journal lives by.

So we know, with regard to Media Matters, you’re only out to do a hatchet job, utterly devoid of honesty, facts or credibility. You’re gonna make plenty of stuff up. Call everybody drugged out and gay, or something. Where’s the article, incidentally?

Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations
By Tucker Carlson, et. al. | The Daily Caller | 10:02 PM 02/12/201

There it is. And that’s it? You’re going with erratic behavior? That’s how you’ll vaporize the enemy? Allegations of moods. This should be good.

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled . .

. . “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

What a devastating lede. God damn, you are funny, Tucker. The “movement leader” quote is a dead giveaway, by the way — liberals wouldn’t use such a term because we’re not followers. You guys are the “movement” people.

But if you think Brock is paranoid and that’s enough to end his career, you should meet the guy who runs Fox News, Roger Ailes:

Barricading himself behind a massive mahogany desk, Ailes insisted on having “bombproof glass” installed in the windows – even going so far as to personally inspect samples of high-tech plexiglass, as though he were picking out new carpet. Looking down on the street below, he expressed his fears to Cooper, the editor he had tasked with up-armoring his office. “They’ll be down there protesting,” Ailes said. “Those gays.”

What does this qualify Roger for? Permanent retirement?

Inside his blast-resistant office at Fox News headquarters, Ailes keeps a monitor on his desk that allows him to view any activity outside his closed door. Once, after observing a dark-skinned man in what Ailes perceived to be Muslim garb, he put Fox News on lockdown. “What the hell!” Ailes shouted. “This guy could be bombing me!”

Or merely a funny jacket? Anyway, I gather from the Brock smear, which you believe is the highlight of your reporting, that actual facts about the work Media Matters engages in will not be forthcoming. Instead you’ll mine or make up a pile of quotes from unnamed sources to make your target seem somehow less than decent and civilized. And that’s what you did.

Check these ‘page’ sub-headings and companion quotes.

–”How Media Matters targets network anchors, while avoiding taking credit”:

“In ‘08 it became pretty apparent MSNBC was going left,” says one source. “They were using our research to write their stories. They were eager to use our stuff.” Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.

Unnamed source. Unfounded fact.

–”Sources reveal reporters, bloggers among those who lean on Media Matters”:

“The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,” says a Media Matters source, “from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

“If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game,” agreed another source with firsthand knowledge.

More unnamed sources. For some reason, they engage in dialogue out of a two-bit screenplay. “It was Sargent, see? He was the guy! He was itchin’ for it . . real bad, man.”

–”Media Matters’ weekly call… with the White House”:

Less than a month later, in language that could have been copied directly from a Media Matters press release, White House communications director Anita Dunn leveled almost precisely the same charge, dismissing Fox as “more a wing of the Republican Party.”

Were the lines of attack coordinated? “To my knowledge, there wasn’t coordination,” says a source. But at times there has seemed to be a kind of mind meld between the Obama political team and Media Matters.

Unnamed sources that can’t even connect your villains. So you had to mind-meld them.

–”Brock’s behavior becomes a problem”:

“Some days he’d come in and you could tell he was on his meds because he would just sit in his office alone and not engage with staff,” says a coworker. Other days, “he’d be intensely engaged. He’d get manic, very reckless and grandiose. You’d see this level of self-confidence in him that would spiral.”

Last spring, some at Media Matters headquarters and in other parts of the progressive world were caught off guard by an interview Brock gave to Ben Smith at Politico, in which he promised to wage “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. “It was insane,” says a coworker. “David was totally manic at the time. We were all shocked.”

Friends say Brock, who has publicly admitted drug use in the past, was working obsessively and staying out late with compatriots. “They’d close [local bars] and party till six in the morning,” said one.

Said one. Thought some. Says a coworker. Says a coworker. Tucker, you’ve got a six page article full of nothing. Sheer trash. The worst sort of journalism. And then you finish it off with this final, earth-shattering revelation:

The atmosphere in the office was considerably more tolerant on non-editorial matters. “There were these two folks who got caught [having sex] in the communications war room on the weekend,” said one employee.

“People came in, and lo and behold there were two of their colleagues doing the nasty on a desk.” Neither one was fired.

Pow! No one was fired. And why was that? Because Media Matters are unstable, conspiratorial liars. That is, of course, when they’re not forthright honest souls who seek out Tucker Carlson to tell him the truth, anonymously.

The GOP got real pissed about Newt crowding their presidential turf, so they figured they’d teach him a lesson. They’d rough him up a little bit. Send him a message. They sent their tommy-gun wielding trenchcoats to lumber around the political country looking for him.

Yesterday, Bob “Dick Pills” Dole, Elliot “Two Ells” Abrams, Ann “Goiter Gabooya” Coulter and Tom “You Do Not Have The Warden’s Permission To Date My Bunghole” Delay cornered the candidate and grabbed him by the hair. Dragged him to the internet. Tossed him around a bit.

GOP: We’re only kidding with you. We’re having a party. Hey, we just came home, and we haven’t seen you in a long time, eh? We’re breaking your balls. And you, you’re getting fucking fresh. Well, gee, we are so sorry. We didn’t mean to offend you . .

Newt: Fundamentally . .

GOP: Yeh, hmm. Right. Salud . .

Newt: Frankly . .

GOP: Now go home and get your fucking shinebox.

Well, this made Klondike Parkaboobs cry. And if she cries, you can expect a Facebooking:

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left
by Sarah Palin on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:57pm

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

The politics of personal destruction, you say?

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives . .

Oh dear. It’s sickening, isn’t it?

The way other folks behave?

Denigrating people.

Mocking people.

Debasing their good reputations.

Spreading the sorts . .

. . of rumors . .

. . and lies . .

. . that amount . .

. . to nothing . .

. . less than . .

. . an attempt . .

. . to annhilate . .

. . their fellow American?

It’s remarkable how the Tea Party remains above that.


(. . h/t ronaldjacksonX)