Comment: As noted by O’Reilly, other pro-choice women didn’t have a problem with the ad. Frances Kissling, former President of Catholics for Choice,” said that "it's absurd to claim that this is an endorsement of violence against women.” But then O’Reilly did what he described as the tactics of those in left wing causes. He attacked those who “think differently” by painting the president of NOW and Jehmu Greene as ridiculous “extremists” – a view which damns with faint praise or praises with faint damns, those women who do agree with NOW and Jehmu Greene (whom Bill recently interviewed) who are obviously Bill’s target du jour.If pro choicers had little problem with the ad, why even bother with this segment other than to attack these two “radical feminist” women and other “radical feminists” (get the message? feminism is “radical”) who did have a problem with the “sweet ad.” And to make their point, they took their statements about domestic violence and made them a laughing matter. I guess these guys don’t either realize or don’t care about a very serious problem in our society. One suspects that this segment validated the sexism of Bill's male audience who, like Bill, think that modern women just "don't know their place." But don’t ya love it when too aging guys laugh about domestic violence!? Don’t ya love it when people get attacked in a format which does not provide for a rebuttal!? What a couple of “jokers!”

UPDATED WITH CORRECT VIDEO

Co-host Brian Kilmeade didn’t quite buy that idea and seemed as though he thought Palin had made a boneheaded move. But he drowned his critique in compliments. “There’s nothing wrong if she had a card, just jot a card down… But to sit there, …do the interview and then look down at her hand, I think that is… like you said Gretchen, before, folksy, absolutely down to earth, I can identify. But if you’re gonna write on your hand, why not just say, ‘Staffer, can you hand me a card?’ And then it would have been OK.”

"Fair and balanced" Fox Nation got into the act, too, trying to paint the left as unhinged nit-pickers who "freaked over this non-issue rather than focus on her brilliant speech knocking the Obama Administration’s horrid record on economics and national defense."

Rather than a full-out defense of Palin, Sean Hannity used the incident to attack Barack Obama. He rehashed Obama’s “corpsman” faux pas three more times during the show (bringing the total number of times Hannity has harped on this issue to 7). Hannity's choice to deflect from Palin was a further indication that the “palm pilot” incident was more problematic than Fox and he led viewers to believe.

First, Hannity started with Dick Morris, with this "fair and balanced" question: “The President last week talks about ‘corpse-man,’ talks about 57 states, 'spread the wealth around.' How come the media attacks (Palin) because she wrote a couple of notes on her hand and he reads a teleprompter all day long?”

Morris replied, “’Cause she’s a woman and because she’s a Republican woman…. She’s an existential threat. Other people can attack their policies. What Sarah Palin does is attack their base.”

Unfortunately, the Democrats on the show, both of whom were Fox News contributors – and thus colleagues of Palin – pulled their punches.

In a segment featuring Democrat Kirsten Powers and conservative S.E. Cupp, Hannity used the issue to once again harp on “corpse-man.” Powers said, “This is a ridiculous issue… Who cares?”

Cupp whined, “There’s a double standard.” She claimed she would not care about Obama if people didn’t attack Palin or Bush when they mispronounced a word.

But there are some big differences here which have nothing to do with a double standard and which Powers failed to note. First of all, there are serious issues about Palin’s gravitas, which many conservatives have acknowledged, which do not exist with Obama. The fact is, had Obama made the kinds of mistakes that Palin made during the campaign, Cupp can bet her initials that she’d be screeching even louder now if he had gotten caught with notes on his hand. Second, it’s one thing to misread a teleprompter. It’s another to show up for a very friendly Q&A with cliff notes that indicate she has trouble remembering her own core issues. Third, there’s the hypocrisy factor. Palin had attacked Obama during her speech for using a teleprompter while she was obviously speaking from prepared remarks, herself. Obama has already proved he can master speaking off the cuff. Palin not so much.

But Powers seemed to have missed or overlooked those factors, along with all the other troubling issues about Palin’s appearance: the untruths, her flip-flop on the bailout, the $100,000 speaking fee at what was supposed to be a grass roots get-together, the disturbing behavior of some of the other speakers. “People make mistakes,” Powers said, conveniently dismissing Palin as an issue. “I don’t have a problem with the fact that Sarah Palin wrote something on her hand.”

Powers even went out of her way to agree with the conservative talking points. “We know this. There is a double standard.” She added, “Joe Biden says all sorts of ridiculous things and gets facts wrong and he’s still considered among the establishment to be very smart, which actually I think he is very smart and I think Palin can be smart and write on her hands.” But again, Biden served for 36 years in the Senate spent 17 years as either the Chairman or Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and more than a decade as the Chairman or Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee. Palin, on the other hand, quit in the middle of her first term as governor of Alaska. You might say there’s a double standard for double standards.

Sadly, Democrat Bob Beckel was only marginally better in the “Great American Panel” segment. First, he said he had no problem at all with Palin writing notes on her hand. But at least he admitted he was “a little conflicted” because “she’s now a colleague here at Fox.” He added that he hoped Palin would “start to read up on some things, get up to speed and I just want to say right now… I am for her for president in 2012.”

Panelist Cal Thomas repeated the "double standard" meme.

Former Miss America Kirsten Haglund, another panelist, claimed that “the liberal media” just wanted to discredit Palin because “they see her as a threat.” Haglund went on to argue that the left only wants to discredit Palin, rather than discuss her policy. “They’re trying to make her laughable. They’re not attacking her message. They’re not talking about what she was speaking about.”

That would have been a perfect opportunity for Beckel to explain why the hand notes were emblematic of deeper issues with Palin. And I hoped he might when he asked, “What exactly was that message? Can you tell me?” He added that he could not “figure out what she was doing.”

Hannity interrupted to bark, “Stay on substance here.” What he really meant was, "Stay OFF substance here." Hannity went on to say, “If Sarah Palin said ‘corpse-man,’ reading from a teleprompter three times in a speech, she would be excoriated.” He complained that there were more Google stories about Palin’s hand notes than “corpse-man.”

By preventing Beckel from discussing Palin’s message and insisting that the discussion remain focused on Obama’s mispronunciation, Hannity had just made Haglund’s point in reverse. Funny how she never objected. Instead, she argued that Palin was a target partially because she’s a woman but mostly because she’s a conservative.

Beckel got going a little bit. “The reason (Palin) gets beat up is not because she’s a woman, it’s because she doesn’t have anything substantively yet to say. I’d like her to come up with a policy speech. That would be a nice idea.”

That was fine as far as it went but when an ignorant, dishonest harpy holds herself up as some kind of national leader or spokesperson and gets significant media and political support for her efforts, I think a bit more exposure of the charade is in order.

Fox has a lot invested in Palin; they've even gone so far as to build a TV studio in her home. So clearly, they're not about to let one embarrassment spoil their plans. But if their latest star pundit repeatedly proves that she can't get through a friendly Q&A without looking like a fool, well, you have to wonder how long their patience and deep pockets will last.

Starkist Tuna Consumer Affairs tells StopBeck.com, “We have chosen to not air our commercial during Glenn Beck’s program going forward given a number of alternatives that meet our advertising plan’s criteria.”

Surely by now the program is running as a Loss Leader for the Fox News Channel, unless the sponsors still advertising in his show are able to pay the entire freight.

Saturday’s (2/6/10) Bulls & Bears featured a debate about Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) proposal to cut taxes across the board. Mike Papantonio, the lone liberal guest among 4 other panelists, questioned why, if tax cuts are the answer, the Bush tax cuts did not protect us from the high unemployment currently facing the country. Nobody could answer the question. With video.

Papantonio said, "Sounds like the old trickle down again. Let me ask you, Eric, if cutting taxes worked, we would be at zero unemployment right now. Look at the tax cuts we've had over the last eight years, but right now, we have an employment problem. The only way to solve the employment problem is what Obama is talking about. Put money into small businesses." Papantonio added, “Scott Brown is Newt Gingrich, 100 pounds lighter and less gray hair. All he wants to do is talk about trickle down, the same thing we've heard for 8 years, it doesn't work."

Tobin Smith said, "Entrepreneurs are more aggressive when they feel that they're going to keep more of what they earn and what they make." But he also failed to rebut Papantonio.

Dr. Bob Froehlich also wanted tax cuts. "If we have across the board tax cuts, the economy is going to strengthen… Lower the taxes, the economy grows. Every time, the economy grows, every time."

Papantonio (who is a previous News Hounds Top Dog) said, "Biggest tax cuts we've ever had was under the GOP, and we're still in the job hole. How do you explain that if you're theory is right?"

Claman, the guest host, asked Gary B. Smith, "Mike makes a point, that we had the Bush tax cuts, and we're in this situation right now." She continued with a helpful talking point for the conservatives, “Granted, we had the force majeure situation of the fiscal crisis but, what do you think?”

Smith said, "The greatest period of growth… if you look at 25 year increments was from 1983-2007. What happened during that time? Low taxes, high employment, high stock market."

Papantonio was smart enough not to politely wait his turn. He jumped in, "Gary wants it both ways… You know what you want to go back to, Gary? Trickle down - it didn’t work. Deregulation - it didn’t work. Big is better - it didn’t work."

Smith buried his forehead in his hand and Claman stepped in to tell Papantonio to let Smith finish.

Claman gave another boost to the conservatives (as if they didn't already have enough people on their side) by asking Papantonio, "Isn't it better to give people the money back in their pockets to then spend it? …It doesn’t automatically create a job but at least they spend it on things to grow their businesses."

"We gave the wealthiest part of this population $400 billion under Gary’s president, George Bush," Papantonio said. "Did they spend it? Is the job market good? Is our economy good? It was a disaster. Gary knows it. Everybody on this panel knows it.”

Finally, Claman conceded, “Maybe the time to have cut taxes was not during boom years… But now is not the time, you would say, to raise taxes?”

But raising taxes was not the issue.

Stewart: Here's what Fox has done through their cyclonic, perpetual emotion machine that is a 24-hour a day, seven day a week, they've taken reasonable concerns about this President and this economy and turned it into a full-fledged panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao. Explain to me why that is the narrative of your network."

O'Reilly lamely attempted to defend Fox, saying, "It's the narrative of a couple of guys, a Republican, Sean Hannity, and a guy, uh, uh, Glenn Beck, who's basically Everyman."

Stewart was aghast. "What do you mean, he's Everyman? What do you mean, he's Everyman?"

Beck defended himself by pretending that he’s only looking out for the country. “My motive is – when I first got into radio, I was 13. So it was entertain, have fun, etc., etc. Now, my motive for saying the things that I say is radically different. It changed on September 11th . I didn’t feel that I was educated enough or the guy to speak to America after September 11th. So I dedicated myself to read, to study, to learn, to seek out information. My motive now is, I’ve got four children. I’d like an America to be around. It’s why I took on the Republican Party during Bush and said, ‘Look at what they’re doing.’" I’d love to see someone really confront Beck over his tactics and make him explain why, if he’s such a patriot, he repeatedly uses violent imagery and histrionics to make his points. And why does he continue to claim, when it’s convenient, that he’s just an entertainer?

Not only did O’Reilly not confront Beck, he went to bat for him. “And I hit Stewart for that. That was crazy.” O’Reilly helpfully added, “So you want to save the country. You basically want to save it… Paul Revere with a strange haircut.”

Beck said amiably, “(Stewart) thinks I’m the anti-Christ… I think Jon Stewart is a smart guy. I think he’s a funny guy. I’ve always enjoyed Jon Stewart.”

“No animus toward him?” O’Reilly asked with a bit of disbelief.

“No,” Beck said convincingly.

“Don’t think he’s destroying the country?”

“No!” Beck was emphatic.

Here’s where O’Reilly began to jump the shark and sound like Beck talking about Obama. “I do. I do (think Stewart is destroying the country) …And here’s why… If you watch his show, you almost have to smoke marijuana, just to get through it. So he’s kind of undermining the whole fabric…”

“So have you ever watched the show?” Beck asked.

“No. ‘Cause I never smoked marijuana,” O’Reilly said. Then he called out, “We’re only kiddin’ out there, you loons. This is the humorous part of The Factor.”

Then, after Beck reiterated that he did not take Stewart’s criticism personally, O’Reilly played a clip of Obama saying at the National Prayer Breakfast, “Surely, you can question my policies without questioning my faith. Or for that matter, my citizenship.”

O’Reilly said, “I like that. What’s wrong with that?”

“Nothing wrong with that,” Beck said. And then he started on his attack schtick. “…I think it’s interesting – I’d like to know if it was in the teleprompter or if it was an ad lib. Because this proves my point for all these people who are like (Beck changed his voice and began gesticulating to mock his critics) ‘Aw, you birther!’ …Who’s bringing up the birther? The only time I ever see a birther is like in a parking lot with a sign… Who’s bringing it up? This administration brings it up all the time. They need the birth certificate thing because it unites their base.”

Well, for starters, as Beck and O’Reilly must surely know, there’s Joseph Farah, of World Net Daily, hardly some guy in a parking lot with a sign. In fact, he spoke about the subject that very day – and received cheers from the crowd - at the Tea Party Convention, the same event that Fox News relentlessly hyped. There’s also Jerome Corsi, co-author of the Swift Boat Veterans attack book, one of Fox's fave subjects in 2004 and given a double segment on Hannity to tout his new anti-Obama book as recently as October, 2009. And speaking of Hannity, he also gave credence to the birthers on more than one occasion. Are all those people in cahoots with the Obama administration?

O’Reilly must think so. “I agree with you 100%,” he told Beck.

“You might as well just go on the payroll for Barack Obama,” Beck said, returning to his role as the reasonable one.

It was O’Reilly who said, (and we’ll assume he was joking but he said it in a serious tone), “I think the reason they didn’t ever produce the birth certificate is because they wanted these loons out there.”

Beck replied, “Hang on. I think he has produced the birth certificate.” Yes, Obama has produced it.

“We have a facsimile,” O’Reilly said, sounding more and more like a birther loon, himself. “But I want him to send (the original) directly to me." Then, in what may be one of the greatest non-sequitors of all time, O'Reilly said, "But President Obama is right when he says, I think, that you can disagree with his politics all day long but you don’t have to tear him up as a human being.”

“Do you think I tear him up as a human being?” Beck asked with a straight face.

Also with a straight face, O’Reilly said, “No, I don’t. I don’t think that you’re an Obama hater. And I told that to Stewart and all these other pin heads.”

Noble also said, " . . . [I]t would pretty clearly violate the law for the owner of a cable station to decide to give a talk show -- or otherwise hand over editorial control of a program -- to a favored candidate."

Except, as we all know, Fox would be very capable of trying an end-run if it turns out that the FEC frowns on such endorsements. Look, we've got GOP has-beens galore on Fox -- Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Dick Morris and now Sarah Palin. If this doesn't highlight in neon Fox News' bias, I don't know what does. And with a tv studio right there at home, Fox could do Greta-style interviews -- you know, Palin cooking moose stew, moose brownies, moose bread, while talking idly about national security and the economy -- and just call it a reality show.

I may have missed something, but I don't know of any other Fox contributors that Fox has provided such a nice set-up for. As a matter of fact, though they might be out there, I don't know of any other networks that provide this set-up for its contributors, hosts, or reporters.

As for the motive of Fox . . . I think it bears watching.

Editor's Note: Pat Buchanan is a commenter on MSNBC, not Fox, as was previously reported in this post.

Our last exciting episode of TBWTW ended with a mighty cliffhanger worthy of The Perils of Pauline: Glenn Beck’s Fox News boss, Roger Ailes, had defended his Great White Hope from an undercard challenger, Arianna Huffington, on ABC’s This Week. It was still being buzzed all over the innertubes and airwaves as the new week began, even though it was not a classic smackdown, in a Frasier-Ali-sense. Arianna never really laid a glove on him.

The bout began slowly with Barbara Walters referencing the Fox News Channel’s feud with the White House—the previous cage match—which Ailes insisted is resolved.

“We have a good dialogue and I saw the President and his wife at the media Christmas party. They were very gracious, very nice, both of them. And we have a dialogue every day with them,” Ailes said.

Possibly trying to promote another Top Card Match Up, Barbara Walters interjected, “Oh, shucks. It was more fun the other way.”

Always obliging, AIles responded, “Well, I’ll pick a fight if you want. I mean, I’d be happy to get into one. But, I think, there will be others. We have differences, but, uhhh—“

This was the exact moment that Barbara Walters tagged her teammate. Arianna entered the fray.

“But Roger, it’s just not a question of picking a fight. And—Aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using? Which is, after all, inciting the American People. There’s a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who’s going to be the next in the [inaudible]…

“Well, he was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people so I think he was probably accurate. Also, I’m a little—”

“No, he was talking about this administration.”

“I think he speaks English, I don’t know, but I mean, I don’t misinterpret any of his words. He did say one unfortunate thing, which he apologized * for, but that happens in live television, so I don’t think it's—If we start going around as the Word Police, uhh, in this business, we will be a—”

“It’s not about the Word Police,” began Arianna, winding up her haymaker. “It’s about something deeper. It’s about the fact that there’s a tradition, as the historian Richard Hofstadter said, in American politics of the 'paranoid style.' And, the paranoid style is dangerous when there’s real pain out there.”

Yet, Ailes was ready for this knock-out punch, as if he knew it was coming and had already practiced to avoid the blow. “I agree with you. I read something on your blog that said I looked like J. Edgar Hoover, had a face like a fist, and I was essentially a malignant tumor. And I thought—And then he got nasty after that.”

“That was never by anybody that we [inaudible]…”

“Then he really went nasty and I thought, ‘Arianna really ought to cut this out.’”

And that’s when Barbara Walters changed the conversation to Sarah Palin, the former co-Governor of Alaska, signaling the end of the round.

Little seen, however, was this little video posted by our friends at Think Progress showing the conversation that continued in the Green Room after the show ended, with Ailes absent.

HUFFINGTON: Well I wanted to know why Fox stopped showing the retreat — the Republican retreat with the President 20 minutes before it finished. It was clearly riveting television, by any standard, whether you agree with the President or not. Why did they?

And my answer is — since Roger is not able to answer for himself — is that it went against their framing of the President. Their framing of the President is that he’s radical, that he’s taking us down a dark, fascist or Bolshevik future (depending on the day). And there he was, rational, charming, and in full command of his facts. So the narrative fell apart and so the cameras stopped showing what was happening.

PAUL KRUGMAN [also a guest that day]: Yeah, I mean it’s — I thought it was actually quite funny except it has real consequences. There you have Roger Ailes, with this powerful, popular news network, whining about how the media are unfair to Republicans. I mean, he is a powerful person in the media — and of course, you know, “Fair and Balanced” is truly Orwellian and we know that. So it’s clear that Fox — I felt like yelling to him “you can’t handle the truth!” Because that was what was actually happening on the Fox coverage.

The push-back on Ailes’ comments started almost immediately. It was mentioned at the very end of my column of last week, as I was watching it live while I finishing the column. News Hounds’ Ellen took a look at just the smack down, as did many other blogs, pro-Ailes, pro-Huffington, or dispassionate.

Arianna produced her own post-mortem of the fight the next day, in which she smacked down every feeble lie and misdirection by Roger Ailes on This Week. Admittedly this is far easier to do when your opponent is not actually present to spew more lies and bullshit.

It was only a matter of time before the ever thin-skinned Beck went on his Radio Drama Theatre to defend himself. Never satisfied with simple language when hate and hyperbolic rhetoric will do, The Beckereeno did it with far more lies and misdirection than his boss Roger Ailes had the previous day. At least Ailes never denied Beck used the word “slaughter.”

BECK: I don't even know if I've ever used the word "slaughtered." And if I used the word "slaughtered," if it wasn't in a context of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, it was in the idea that the truth is being slaughtered by this administration... not saying that this administration is going to slaughter anyone.

GRAY: Never, never.

Spurred back into action by the most obvious of lies, Huffington showed she was more than ready to go a few more rounds. This time she took on the Great White Hope, Glenn Beck, directly with an article titled Glenn Beck Goes After Me, But Forgets His Show Is on Video and Lies About Things He “Never, Never” Said. In it she took apart, step by step, all the lies and misdirection by both Ailes and Beck.

Brave New Films was far more concise. In a 36 second video, they show Ailes and The Beckerhead denying the “slaughtered” comment and then the actual “slaughted” comment.

Then it came time for Bill Mann to push back. I had never really heard of Mr. Mann before, until I had read his HuffPo piece on Monday, Sorry That I Hurt Fox News Czar Roger Ailes’ Tender Feelings, even though it was clear he was not really sorry. It was Mann who compared Ailes to J. Edgar Hoover and said he had a face like a fist. What’s more, Mann also noted “that [Ailes claimed] I'd referred to him as a ‘malignant tumor.’ I'd actually called him ‘a malignant tumor on the body politic.’ (But why quibble?).”

Now it all made sense. Ailes, who controls the biggest megaphone in the American Corporate Media Megaplex, has as thin a skin as his prodigy (progeny?) Beckereeno. Furthermore, he doesn’t even use his own network to, laughingly and lyingly, defend his big ratings star. He peddled his crap on ABC, obviously waiting in ambush to use Mann’s column to deflect any blows Huffington might have landed...and he didn’t even get that right. In Mann’s snarky mea culpa he excoriated Ailes for putting such incendiary people as Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck on the public airwaves. However, Mann’s best line quotes Edward R. Murrow, a journalistic hero to even a self-admitted non-journalist like Glenn Beck, who once compared himself to Edward R. Morrow by saying he was no Edward R. Morrow and then proved it by putting words in Morrow’s mouth he never said. In fact, no one ever said them. Beck not only put the words into the wrong mouth, but quoted it inaccurately besides. That’s why his history lessons are so much fun.

Anyway, Mann quoted Morrow as saying, “Just because your voice is amplified by the airwaves, doesn't mean that your opinions have any more validity than back in the days when they only carried down to the other end of the bar.”

Odd that Mann would use a quote with that analogy. Odder still was when, twice during the week, Bill “Loofah Lad” O’Reilly used the same analogy to defend Beck’s bluster, to Jon Stewart and Time’s Joe Klein in separate interviews in The Whirling Dervish Zone.

O'Reilly: He's got a blackboard out there, he's got a phone to the White House -- look, he is everyman sitting on a barstool. Why shouldn't everyman have a show?

Klein: No, no, he is Father Coughlin trying to delude and entertain the American people.

O'Reilly: That's such baloney. That's the left-wing line, that this guy is a threat to the union. If anybody thinks Glenn Beck is a threat to the union, they're insane!

Note Klein’s comparison of Beck to demagogue Father Charles Coughlin, a comparison made in this space back in November and repeated many times since all over the innertubes. David Neiwert, who has already debunked Beck’s laughable documentary, even played The Beckerhead’s own game “Compare and Contrast,” looking at Beck and Father Coughlin. Not surprisingly, to anyone who has watched Beck’s show, there are more similarities than points of divergence.

When O’Reilly interviewed Stewart, News Hounds' Julie told us:

O'Reilly lamely attempted to defend Fox, saying, "It's the narrative of a couple of guys, a Republican, Sean Hannity, and a guy, uh, uh, Glenn Beck, who's basically Everyman."

Stewart was aghast. "What do you mean, he's Everyman? What do you mean, he's Everyman?"

"It means that he doesn't shill for any party, he just spouts," O'Reilly said weakly.

"What!"

"If you think that Beck shills for the Republican Party, you're out of your mind," O'Reilly said, again testy.

While I leave it to others at News Hounds to unspin The No Spin Zone, Loofah Lad’s calling Beck “everyman” is simply ludicrous. It’s not “every man” who earns north of $20 million dollars per year and has his own radio and tee vee shows. And, “every man” doesn’t hook up a Hot Line to the White House, unless they are delusional. [The jury is still out on that one.] Trying to turn the hateful Beck into the lovable and cuddly Norm Peterson, on Cheers, is simply a non-starter.

However, Beck and The Huffington were still not done with their Battle Royale. After a few more radio remarks by Beck on Tuesday, Arianna said, “So, to review the ever-changing explanations: Beck never used the word "slaughter" -- until it was proven that he did. Then he only used it in reference to Mao, Stalin, or Hitler -- until it was proven that this wasn't the case. Then, when he used it, he wasn't referring to the Obama administration, he was referring to Andy Stern. Then he was referring to Obama -- but didn't mean it literally.

“Got it? You might need to use Beck's trademark chalkboard to keep track.”

Trying to keep track of why Ailes is mad at Huffington, why Mann is mad at Ailes, why Beck is mad at Huffington, why O’Reilly is mad at Stewart, why Stewart is made at Beck, why Fox News is mad at the POTUS, and why everybody is mad at Glenn Beck is practically a full time job. That’s why I’m not bothering to write about his show this week. Had I bothered, it would have been similar to every one of my other columns because The Glenn Beck Show was no different this week than any other, as I have been lamenting for weeks.

However, following this convoluted story, which arose out of a few minutes of utter bullshit spewing out of Roger Ailes’ mouth last Sunday, was a lot of fun, and just a bit frustrating. It was like being a teacher in Junior High School and trying to get to the bottom of a school feud. While it’s known that Mary and Sally got into a punch-up in the schoolyard, once you start unraveling the story you find out that this girl said that thing about this boy, who ratted out his friend, who told his sister that another girl was talking smack about his girlfriend, who told Mary, who insisted that Sally meet her in the parking lot after school. By the time Sally and Mary were finally mixing it up, no one any longer knew what the fight was about.

* All the innertubes are trying to figure out which “unfortunate thing, which he [Beck] apologized for,” referenced by Ailes in the Huffington Smackdown. None can seemingly remember Beck apologizing for anything. However, Beck did make one correction on his show, though it wasn’t much of an apology. Having called Van Jones a “convicted felon,” he was forced to take it back FOUR months later when his crack research team gave up trying to find a felony in Van Jones background.

====

I would like to leave you with two addendums:

1). This is the 22nd week I have written for News Hounds in the subject of Beck. It continues to be a lot of fun and I hope it still is for my readers as well. Back in August, just before I started writing these columns, I shared the following with my friends on facebook, “Aunty Em thinks this man [Glenn Beck] has the funniest show on the tee vee and I honestly believe if you watch this show just once, you'll come back to it again and again.

“There are at least 3 laugh-aloud, belly-rolling guffaws per show. But, that's not all.

“Ben Gleck™ brings on enough crazy --- as well as The Crazies --- to power an entire Conspiracy Theory Website, with enough juice left over to still light half of Cleveland.

“It's the televised equivalent of two clown cars crashing onto each other in the middle of Times Square. While a part of you might weep at the senseless carnage and loss of life, you just can't help laughing at them running willy nilly thru' the intersection in those big shoes and red noses.”

2). I wanted to leave you with this charming bit of YouTubery that I’ve been tryng to shoehorn, with little success, into my last 3 columns. Just watch and enjoy:

With all my love,

Aunty Em

Wallace next addressed the "controversy" about Palin endorsing Rand Paul for the Senate primary in Kentucky, mentioning that even her top admirer, Bill Kristol, was upset with her about that. Wallace noted that Paul wants to close Gitmo, send detainees to Afghanistan, repeal the Patriot Act, and do away with any federal role in gay marriage or drug laws, basically leaving those things to the states.

Palin answered, "Nobody's ever gonna find a perfect candidate, there are things that I don't agree with, with Ron Paul . . . he wants a limited government . . . I'm proud to support him, again, never finding a perfect candidate . . . ." Well, if you're going to support him, might behoove you to remember that his name is RAND, not RON.

Wallace asked her what she thinks of Barack Obama's presidency so far.

Palin right away talked about the "misguided decisions that he is making" and that he is expecting people to "sit down and shut up and accept . . . ."

Wallace interrupted her, protesting, "Wait wait wait, where's he saying sit down and shut up?"

Palin backtracked a bit, saying, "In a general . . . just kind of his general persona . . . when he is up there at, I'll call it a lectern, when he's up there and he is telling us basically, I know best, my people here in the White House know best . . . ." Gosh, can you imagine? The President of the United States, elected by the citizens of the United States, actually having the audacity to think that he and his advisers know best? Can you believe the nerve of that man?

"Instead of lecturing," Palin lectured, "He needs to stop and he needs to listen."

Palin began to talk about President Obama's approach "on national security, this perceived 'laxadaisical' approach that he has . . . ," but was interrupted by Wallace.

"Let's talk about national security," Wallace challenged. "During the campaign, you said this: [Wallace played the infamous clip of Palin's comment that President Obama sees American as "imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists."]

Wallace noted that President Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, launched more drone attacks in his first year than Bush did in eight years, and asked Palin if she would now take back the comment about "palling around with terrorists."

"No, I don't," Palin arrogantly replied, "Because his association with Bill Ayers and with others . . . he never really has . . . addressed why in the world he would have a relationship with a type of person like that who had such disdain for America . . . ." In a follow-up failure, Wallace neglected to ask Palin about her own husband, Todd's, disdain for America by virtue of his membership, until 2002, in the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for secession from the United States. (By the way, here's an excellent article by a Chicago writer, Michael Sweeney, on Bill Ayers, and his remote connection to President Obama.)

Wallace pressed Palin on the national security issue, asking, "Hasn't he done a good job in protecting the country?"

Palin, certain that, lectern or not, she knows best, said, "He kinda went there fully with the Commanders on the ground asking for more reinforcements . . . kinda went there . . . there are many things that he is doing today that cause an uneasiness in many, many Americans . . . who look at the way that he is treating the trials of these terrorists . . . kind of as . . . a crime spree . . . These are acts of war . . . we need to treat them a little bit differently than an American who is worthy, an American being worthy of our U.S. Constitutional rights . . . I don't think the terrorists are worthy of our rights . . . ." Wow, so she's basically saying that Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley, Jr., and the like are "worthy" individuals? I'm not sure about you, but I'd feel less at risk if KSM escaped in my community than someone like Ted Bundy. And that is, in fact, the point of our Constitution: Some very unworthy individuals are entitled to due process and all attendant Constitutional rights.

I forgot from time to time that I was actually watching Fox, because Wallace continued to press Palin on some fairly difficult issues. He noted that, with respect to the economy, unemployment fell to 9.7%, and the growth rate of the economy was 5.7% in 4th quarter, and he asked her whether Obama deserved credit for those improvements.

Palin noted the "miniscule decrease" in the unemployment rate, but couldn't bring herself -- as one who knows best -- to give President Obama credit where credit is due, saying instead,"We have lost millions and millions and millions of jobs as we have incurred greater debt and deficit . . . millions of jobs have been lost because, I think, Chris, what's coming from the White House is just a fundamental difference from a lot of conservatives and our belief that government is not the answer . . . no, it is free enterprise, the innovation and work ethics of our small businesses . . . empowering them to be able to keep more of what they earn . . . and then be able to create jobs . . . free market/free enterprise based . . . ." I again remembered I was watching Fox as Wallace failed to follow up and ask her what she attributed the improved economy to, if not President Obama's agenda. Wallace also failed to point out that, according to recent statistics, President Obama is "creaming" former President Bush when it comes to jobs. As this chart demonstrates, the number of lost jobs steadily decreased during President Obama's first year -- reversing the upward trend of Bush.

Wallace also challenged Palin on her anti-choice position, and talked about her passage in "Going Rogue" where she talked about her pregnancy with Trig.

"It was the right choice for you -- why not allow all women to make their own choice?" Wallace asked.

Palin saw no irony in the fact that, if she had her way, her "choice" to bear Trig would not have been a choice at all, but a mandate.

"I believe," she said, "That these babies in our womb have the right to life and that's what I stand on . . . I can understand the sensitivity of the issue because I've been there . . . why that fleeting thought would enter a woman's mind . . . maybe think that a problem could just be swept away . . . ." Yes, in fact, that is one problem that can, if a woman so decides, be "swept away."

"But," Wallace pressed, "Can you understand where some women, some people would say, I applaud your choice, let me make my own choice?"

Palin got a little testy, and replied loudly, "And that's why I wrote about it . . . I want to empower women though . . . I want women to know that they are strong enough and they are smart enough to be able to do many things at once . . . giving that child life and then perhaps if they're in less ideal circumstances . . . giving that child life which it deserves and then perhaps looking at adoption . . . but not snuffing out the life of the child." In Palin's world, empowering women means denying them the right to choose whether they become mommies or not. And in Palin's world, women are "strong enough" and "smart enough" to bear an unwanted child, but apparently not "strong enough" or "smart enough" to choose not to.

Wallace next addressed Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska with 17 months left, noting that she had called herself a "lame duck" in a state "being paralyzed" because of lawsuits.

"Didn't you let your enemies . . . drive you from office?" Wallace asked.

"Hell no . . . ," Palin smirked, "What we did was, we won . . . The state today, it's not spending millions of dollars to fight these frivolous lawsuits . . . little piddly, petty things . . . costing our state millions of dollars. . . we picked our battle . . . we're gonna get out there and we're gonna fight for Alaska's issues . . . on a different plane and we're not gonna let you guys win . . . ."

Well, about that whole winning thing -- and I want to help Wallace out, here, because although he asked some good questions, he got a little forgetful when it came to the follow-up -- in fact, the state was not spending millions of dollars to fight the lawsuits. In fact, the Alaska Personnel Board estimated the cost at less than $300,000. And Troopergate wasn't exactly a "piddly, petty" thing -- in fact, she was found to have violated ethics in that one. There's also the little issue of an ethics violation for billing travel expenses for her family -- and as part of the settlement, she was forced to pay the money back.

Finally, about that whole fighting for Alaska's issues "on a different plane" -- I must have missed the part of the "Going Rogue" book tour when she publicly fought for Alaska's issues. I haven't heard her doing a lot of fighting for Alaska's issues as a Fox contributor, either. Her $100,000 speech at the teabagger thing in Nashville didn't include a call to Alaska's issues. I'm pretty sure campaigning for lower 48 GOP candidates didn't seem to include too much about Alaska. Oh, but you know, I must have missed the fight for Alaska on her Twitter or Facebook sites (probably because I don't follow her on Twitter and we're not F/B "friends" -- and here I thought all this time that all she did on Twitter and Facebook was pick fights and criticize her criticizers).

Wallace argued, "They're gonna think they won 'cause you're no longer governor . . . ."

Palin made up some more stuff about "fighting for Alaska," saying, "Now we get to talk about energy independence . . . those things that are important to Alaskans . . . ."

Wallace veered toward Reagon politics, noting that President Reagan was a political inspiration for Palin, and a "formulative figure." He pointed out that during Reagan's entire second term as California governor he was a "lame duck" who was "sharply attacked" by anti-war radicals, but, Wallace asserted, "Ronald Reagan would never have quit."

It's always different when it's Palin, as she noted, "It's a big difference between just getting political potshots fired your way . . . got more of those this morning . . .millions of dollars, a paralyzed administration . . . adversaries were continuing to obstruct [those pesky people who believe a Governor should have ethics] . . . I love Alaska too much to put 'em through that . . . hand the reins over to the Lieutenant Governor . . . we can all get on with life."

Wallace next addressed the fact that NBC has hundreds of e-mails in which Todd exchanged views with state officials on a judicial appointee, appointments to various state boards, and a labor dispute: "Was what he was doing appropriate?" Wallace asked.

"Absolutely," Palin asserted (would she feel the same way if it were revealed that Michelle Obama were involved so deeply in the Obama Administration?), claiming that there are so few people "that someone like me" can trust.

"I'm gonna bounce things off Todd, nothing confidential . . . Todd never circulated anything that was confidential and hadn't already been circulated . . . he certainly had the right to express his opinion . . . ."

"But it's one thing to advise you," Wallace challenged, "He was also sending e-mails to state officials."

"He was forwarding on e-mails . . . ," Palin dissembled, then launched into a totally nonsensical explanation, saying, "Todd and I being in some cases thousands of miles apart . . . I'm telling Todd, hey Todd, print this out for me . . . for practical reasons it helped too. Todd helped as Alaska's First Dude . . . he helped with workforce development issues . . . people out there in the real world with Carharts and steel-toed boots and hard hats . . . trying to build this country . . . ." Again, Wallace failed to ask Palin how Todd's names got on e-mails around issues he was addressing with state officials if all she was doing was using Todd as her personal secretary. He also failed to rein her in when she took a challenge on one more ethical issue and turned it into a back-patting session on God and country. Most importantly, he failed to hold her feet to the fire in the bald-faced lie on the confidentiality of the e-mails. As newser.com reported, "He [Todd Palin] also received background checks on a corporate CEO, and passed financial information marked 'confidential' from the oil company that employed him to a state attorney."

Wallace next spoke words that no doubt struck fear in Palin's heart, telling her they were going to do a "lightening round," which means quick questions and quick answers. In response to a question about whether AG Holder should step down, she said, "sure," mainly because he is allowing terrorists to use our Constitutional protections "when they do not deserve them," and took it one step further to include Rahm Emanuel, who she said has some "indecent and insensitive ways of being." Palin said DADT should not be repealed right now, and considers the President's attention to it a waste of time.

About Rahm Emanuel's use of the word "retarded," Palin asserted, ". . . I am not politically correct, I am not one to be a word police . . . ." Whew, that's a relief -- I personally don't want a word police who uses made-up words like "laxadaisical" and can't string a sentence together without consulting her palm.

Wallace pointed out that Rush Limbaugh "weighed in this week and he said this: 'Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards'."

"He was satirical in that!" Palin defended him.

When asked if Rush Limbaugh should apologize, as she called on Emanuel to do, Palin argued, "Rush Limbaugh was using satire," but backtracked a bit by saying, "Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary . . . speak to the issues and again let's move on." If that's true, then she should be accepting Emanuel's public apology and should not be calling for him to step down.

Wallace noted that people have said that, when it's a political adversary, such as Rahm Emanuel, she calls him out, but when it's a political friend, such as Limbaugh, it's satire. Palin again said there was a "big difference" -- without really explaining what that difference is -- but again backtracked by saying that name-calling by anyone is "unnecessary, it's inappropriate." Hmmm . . . run the clip back -- yes, indeedy, she did just call liberals "kooks." Are we getting the drift yet?

Wallace got a little condescending, saying, "You are a Fox News analyst . . . take off the political player hat and put your analyst hat on and really try and do your best job . . . ." This seemed to offend Palin just a bit -- maybe the notion that she had to be told to do a good job?

She said she had "no idea" who the GOP front runner is for 2012. She mentioned Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, but when Wallace mentioned Romney and Huckabee, Palin fell back on her old "any of them, all of them" response, saying, "I could name a whole lot of 'em but we don't have a whole lot of time . . . I'm very impressed with many of the characters . . . can't wait to see who rises to the circus . . . ." Yes, she said "circus."

Palin derided the poll that showed her leading the 2012 race by 5 points over Romney, saying poll numbers are "fickle." She said she would run for President ". . . If I believed that was the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family, certainly, I would do so . . . it's gonna be . . . a lot of time to be able to make such a decision . . . ."

Palin commented that she is "looking at other potential candidates . . . in a position of having kind of this luxury of having more information at their fingertips right now . . . current events that we're talking about today . . . ."

"You're basically saying you will consider it," Wallace stated.

"I think it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country . . . ," Palin answered. "I won't close a door that perhaps could be opened for me in the future . . . we don't know what the future holds."

Contradicting herself from moments before, when she said other candidates had the "luxury" of more information at their fingertips than she did, Palin admitted that she gets daily e-mail briefings from advisers in DC on domestic and foreign policy issues.

". . . Good people contributing . . . advisers, yes, firing away e-mails to me every morning . . . you need to be aware of this . . . I'm just appreciative of having some good information at my fingertips right now." It's probably her Facebook, Twitter and blogger watchers, who advise her daily of all the negative press she's getting so she knows what sort of blasts to send out on any given day. If it's policy advisers designed to make her more knowledgeable . . . well, she might want to consider a new group of advisers.

Winding it up, Wallace asked Palin how hard it would be to defeat President Obama in 2012.

Palin considered, saying, "Say he played . . . the war card . . . decided to declare war on Iran or . . . support Israel . . . that changes the dynamics . . . if the election were today I do not think Obama would be re-elected . . .."

"You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card," Wallace quickly challenged.

Palin responded, "If he did, things would dramatically change . . . people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit . . . there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years . . . ." That passion . . . you mean the, like, 33% teabaggers? Face it, President Obama's job approval is still -- depending on what poll you look at -- between 48-50%. That doesn't exactly translate into a "passion" to get him out of office.

However, Palin asserted, if he continues on this path, "Then he's not gonna win . . . that's what a lot of Americans are telling him today and he's not listening . . . we have a representative form of government in our democracy . . . that's what the Tea Party Movement is about too . . . it is the people saying, please hear us . . . Congress, you have constitutional limits . . . free market principles . . . Mr. President, we want you to remember those . . . look back on successors in history like what Reagan did . . . and could you repeat those things because they are proven to succeed." Again, Wallace didn't point out to Palin -- clearly a scholar, still -- that our "representative form of government" is in the form of elections, and that our "representative form of government" put President Obama in the White House, by a landslide. He also failed to note that Reagan tripled the deficit.

Another "gotcha" question from Wallace, about whether it's true Palin is getting $100K for the speech.

A classic case of Palin dissembling: "I'm not getting it - they're writing a check, a $100K check . . . I'm turning right around and being able to contribute it back to the cause . . . ."

When Wallace asked if she will use her PAC and and contribute to candidates, Palin responded airily, "I don't know if it's gonna go to the PAC or some non-profit . . . Tea Party Movement, I'm giving the money back to the cause."

Palin summed up her role -- aside from her mommy role, which I haven't seen her playing a lot lately while jetting around on book tours and sashaying into Fox' studios -- is, "I'm gonna fight the elitists . . . the elitists have tried to make people like me . . . feel like we just don't get it . . . I want to speak up for the American people and say, no, we really do have some . . . common sense solutions . . . ."

I can't fault Chris Wallace for the questions he asked -- he had some zingers. But I'm going to assume for the record that the questions were given to Palin in advance, and she had a little time to study them. Clearly, Fox has a motivation for not making her look like the uninformed idiot that she is -- it just hired her as an "analyst." So, if we give Wallace the benefit of the doubt, we can say he asked some good questions but just got weak in follow-up. Or, we can look at Wallace as another Fox News mouthpiece, and assume he asked the questions -- worked out in advance -- so he could claim "fair and balanced," but chose not to do follow-up because that would expose Fox' newest analyst/contributor/rock star as the dishonest, arrogant, hypocritical pile of nonsense that she is. I've watched Fox for a while, and one segment of tough questions does not "fair and balanced" make -- especially when the lame answers are allowed to stand -- so I'm going with the latter. In either event, Fox has its work cut out for it trying to rehabilitate Sarah Palin's image from the Gibson-Couric mess to a coherent "analyst" worthy of clearly enunciating Fox News' misguided but often well-spoken bias.

Thomas states that “the military should not be a test lab” because many heterosexuals find homosexual behavior immoral.” ( As opposed to the heterosexual sexual harassment in the miltiary, Cal?) For Cal it’s all about that “gay agenda:” “The gays in the military and gay marriage issues are part of a broader attempt by liberals to restructure society.” Poor Cal obviously doesn’t realize societies, in which gays serve openly in the military, haven’t come crashing down. Thus, Thomas’ comments during Saturday’s “Fox News Watch,” regarding the recent recommendation by military top brass that the process be started for gays to openly serve in the military, came as no surprise. While the chyron read, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal, Is Press Including All Sides?" (There is another “side?”) Scott asked his panel about the press coverage. Not surprisingly, Scott referenced how the evil NY Times had the coverage in the upper right hand corner. Ellis Henican said that DADT is the “last bastion of officially sanctioned prejudice” and that it is about to change is “a pretty good story.” Thomas then contributed his opinion and it didn’t disappoint. Typical right wing “persecuted Christian,” Thomas said "the last bastion of officially sanctioned precedent” (wrong word Cal) "is Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians.” (Hey, Cal if you’re fired, from a job, because of your religion, you have Civil Rights laws on your side. If you’re booted from the military because you’re gay, you currently have no recourse. And BTW, Cal, conservative Christians aren’t shy about verbally persecuting gays). Cal continued his homophobic rant: “The NY Times is a wholly owned subsidiary of the gay rights movement. Vin Sulzberger is the publisher.” His voice rising in intensity, Thomas said “day after day there are stories, columns, editiorials on the entertainment page, on the business page, on the front page pushing a pro gay rights agenda. That’s just a fact, an observable, provable fact.” Thomas failed to site any stories which “pushed” a gay rights agenda. Kirsten Powers said that she didn’t see what’s wrong with supporting gay rights to which Scott asked ,“the coverage?” While she argued in favor of gay rights, the chyron about “all sides” ran again. She noted how the other side would be arguing about denying rights. In a moment of spit out all liquid in mouth, Scott said “doesn’t the coverage seem to be taking a position?” (Oh, the irony!). Pinkerton said that coverage was favorable during the Clinton administration but this time the Obama administration got the military top brass on board and that in terms of coverage, Obama knew what he was doing.

Comment: “All sides?” So if Fox had been around in the days before the Civil War, they would have recommended that the defenses of slavery and emancipation be given equal time? Go figure! But Cal Thomas was on message. Poor Cal, in a redux of the old John Birch meme that the commies are everywhere (which Thomas probably still believes) the gay agenda is an encroaching menace that threatens to undermine the world as we know it. And while Cal’s bizarre and homophobic world view is amusing, it’s also sad and rather disgusting….

The National Tea Party Convention – hosted by Tea Party Nation – has begun to lay the foundation for a merging of Tea Party activists with the Republican Party. Despite attempts by Democrats and certain media outlets to drive a wedge between the Tea Parties and the GOP, it’s becoming clear that the Tea Parties will grow WITHIN the Republican Party and not splinter off and form a 3rd party.[emphasis mine]
Tea Party Nation has announced the formation of “Ensuring Liberty Corporation” – a 501(c)(4) that will organize and raise funds to support candidates across the country who embrace the conservative principles of:
1. Fiscal Responsibility
2. Lower Taxes
3. Less Government
4. States’ Rights
5. National Security

Be afraid, Democrats, be very afraid! The GOP and the Tea Party are going to form One Big Republican Family and create a behemoth which will roll right over anyone who stands in their way, powering straight into Congress in 2010 and into the Oval Office in 2012!

If you’re the bettin’ kind, I’d put my money elsewhere if I were you.

Watters writes,

The grassroots activists here are ignoring the media-driven narrative of infighting within the Tea Party Movement. They don’t care about that. Yes, there are disputes among different Tea Party groups: The Tea Party Patriots, The Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, Freedom Works … but I have not witnessed any of this in Nashville so far and hear that discussions are taking place at the leadership level to resolve what are considered healthy disagreements that occur in all young organic movements.

The dissent starts at the local level where a split occurred early on in the organizing of the event, which was ultimately run as a commercial, for-profit event by Tea Party Nation owners (yes, owners -TPN is a registered corporation) Judson and Sherry Phillips. The so-called “splinters” ran their own, local, lower-key and inexpensive event in January, attracting 34 Tennessee tea party groups who formed a new umbrella organization, the Tea Party Coalition, representing 18,000 people from Tennessee alone. On the other hand, less than 10% of those attending the Tea Party Nation shindig at Opryland (600 registered for the weekend and an additional 500 attending Sarah Palin’s closing speech) were from Tennessee. Members of the new Coalition staged a protest and press conference outside the convention hall on Saturday to highlight the hierarchical, authoritarian structure of Tea Party Nation as well as its profiteering and all-too-close ties to the Republican party. Politico reports,

Since parting ways with the Phillipses, the [protestors] have formed a coalition of 34 tea party groups from across Tennessee, and have blasted the convention for its $550 tickets, lavish trappings (including a steak-and-lobster banquet on Saturday at which Sarah Palin will deliver the keynote address), for-profit status and ties to the Republican Party. “This movement is not about the Republican Party. It is a grass-roots movement about we, the people,” said Shreeve, who said he resigned from the convention steering committee in protest over the convention’s unusual finances.

And what does Watters say about this? “Typically, the mainstream media representatives here are trying to foment discord and continue to hammer the Tea Party Nation leadership about controversial comments made Thursday night by Tom Tancredo.” Good lord, you couldn’t make it up. Is he really stupid enough to think we’ll believe the organizers didn’t know what they were doing when they had Tancredo, who is a nativist, virulent anti-immigrant activist who has been linked to a neo-Confederate hate group, open the convention on Friday night? Oh, puh-leeeze!

The local grassroots aren’t the only people unhappy with the hijacking of the convention by a group charging high fees for profit (and for paying Sarah Palin a reputed $100,000). A number of other groups pulled out or refused to support the convention including American Liberty Alliance, National Precinct Alliance, and Tea Party Patriots. Tea Party Express also declined to play a high-profile role, though relations between them and the Phillipses are reportedly cordial, and some TPE members attended the convention.

Speaking of hijacking, it appears that this particular Tea Party group, which purports to be the tea party group (The Phillipses believes that the various tea party groups are “competing in the marketplace of ideas” and that some of them won’t survive – but theirs, of course will) may be in the process of selling out to the Republican party. The Phillipses, before they were teabaggers, were ardent Republican activists, and the fact that they invited Republicans Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, and Sarah Palin to be the keynote speakers at their convention (Blackburn and Bachmann reportedly dropped out due to the ethical issue raised by the for-profit status) raised red flags among other groups which value their independence.

"It's just a Republican Party fundraiser," said Jim Tomasik, a Memphis Tea Party activist who is sitting out the convention. "The thing that's going to be going on (this week) will be somebody putting themselves in a position of power over everybody, and you'll see how that turns out." (source)

Indeed. The Wall Street Journal reports, “In Nashville, the prevailing view was that the Tea Party should not seek to build a third party movement but work within the confines of the two-party system. ‘I suspect the Tea Party strategy is to commandeer the Republican machine,’ said Roger Webb, a 65-year-old freelance photojournalist. Attendees were urged not to spend their money traveling to Tea Party rallies in 2010, but rather to support political candidates.” But the WSJ would say that, wouldn’t they ? The WSJ is part of the Murdoch machine, the Murdoch Machine has taken Sarah Palin, the convention’s keynote speaker, to its GOP-loving bosom as a Fox News contributor, and the GOP wants the tea party action. No wonder Weasel Watters is waxing all enthusiastic about the convention while much of the rightwing blogosphere remains eerily silent, wary, or – in the case of at least one neocon blog – sneery. Watters is on the side where money talks, and screw the little guy.

But there are lots of “little” guys and gals out there, and rightly or wrongly, they’re madder ‘n hell. Not all of them will be willing to fall back into line with the GOP, and they’re not likely to go away any time soon.

Pass the popcorn.

Tancredo: "And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word “vote,” or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House, named Barack Hussein Obama.”

Sarah Palin consults her "palm pilot" during her Tea Party Nation speech. What was that you said about President Obama and teleprompters, Sarah? (H/T OliverWillis.com)

Jesse Watters gets with the program.

\Glenn Beck must be a really slow learner. Case in point: on Thursday, February 4th, 2010, Beck said this about President Obama on his radio show: “He chose to use his name, Barack, for a reason. To identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America.. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Really? Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion.”

In a startling move, Fox provided live coverage of Palin's speech during Geraldo at Large last night . . . well, after watching this "coverage," the startling part is that Fox didn't preempt all news coverage over the weekend to cover the Tea Party Convention live, in its entirety. Palin gave her speech -- and I'll touch on the high points momentarily, but if you saw any of her campaign speeches . . . yeah, pretty much more of the same -- and then, ALERT ALERT ALERT flashed at the bottom of the screen, and the chyron read, "Sarah Palin answers questions at National Tea Party Convention." My husband said, when he saw the ALERTs, he thought the Russians were lobbing nucs on us or something. My thought is that Palin's presence on the national stage is almost as bad. Frankly, I would have welcomed something, anything, to put me out of my misery during the interminable 41 minutes that this loathsome woman spent blathering about a lot of shit she knows squat about. At least we were spared the wink.

I listened to her speech, and . . . oh, wow, I didn't know she was an economist ("Our government needs to adopt a pro-market agenda that doesn't pick winners and losers . . . and it levels the playing field for everyone . . . lower taxes for small businesses . . . support competition . . . innovation . . . reward hard work . . . If they would do this, our economy, it would roar back to life . . . .") . . . no, wait, she must be a foreign policy expert ("We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America’s friends from her enemies and identifies the true threats we face") . . . hold up, she's gotta be a Constitutional lawyer ("Our U.S. Constitutional rights . . . the protections provided . . . we're gonna bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution?") . . . damn, I can't believe I missed the news that she's an expert in terrorism ("Treating this [the Christmas Day bomber] like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at grave risk . . . We need a Commander-in-Chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern . . . .") -- and she's a political analyst, too ("Considering the recent conservative election sweep . . . .").

Oh, and I almost forgot -- she channeled Glenn Beck: "America is ready for another revolution and you're a part of this." If I'm not mistaken, at one point she almost cried.

In the Q&A following the speech (worthy of an "Alert" on Fox News), in the midst of clenching and unclenching her left hand and distractedly stroking her left leg, she engaged in the usual overly simplistic answers -- afraid, no doubt, that even with a questioner who was clearly on her side, she could again become the victim of "gotcha" journalism -- but seemed to lose her train of thought. At one point, while she was gesturing, I was sure I saw something . . . odd. And, voila -- as Think Progress noted, it appeared Palin may have had some handy-dandy little CliffsNotes written on her hand. You can see the video clip here -- we report, you decide. And as Oliver Willis pointed out, Palin last night sneered at Obama's use of a teleprompter -- be pretty funny, wouldn't it, if she wrote a note on her hand to remind herself to slam the President's use of a teleprompter?

Despite all the gaffes, the public ridicule, the "gotcha" media events, and the like, Palin has at least been consistent, since the RNC, with one theme: Snarky comments and ill-targeted, misinformed criticisms -- such as deriding the fact that our President is highly educated, and making education suddenly seem like a negative attribute -- against President Obama, his Administration, and, of course, the "media elite". But at one point tonight, Palin sneered, “How’s that hopey-changey thing workin’ out for you?” For the teabaggers, not so much -- but you see, there has been a change, and that leaves us with hope. Since the exit of Bush and the advent of Obama, moronic is no longer the norm; the majority of this country has now learned to identify stupid, target stupid, and isolate stupid where it can do no harm . . . in this case, in a ballroom in Nashville.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CNN and MSNBC both aired President Obama's address to the Democratic National Committee today. Fox News aired its business block. Fox aired Sarah Palin's speech to the Tea Party convention tonight, in full, and also aired the interview following the speech. Double standard? You betcha!