Did Governor Walker step in it, or was he misquoted?

Dana has a scathing article on how Politico and others have grossly misquoted something Scott Walker said on her show.  Here is the transcript:

I've passed prolife legislation, we defunded Planned Parentiood signed a law that requires an ultrasound, um, which, think about that, the media tried to make that sound like it's a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they're prolife or not, I find people all the time will get out their iphone and show me a picture of their grandkids's ultrasound and how excited they are. That's a lovely thing. My sons are 19 and 20, we still have theur [sic] ultrasound picture, it's a cool thing out there.

Dana states,  "What's the point of discussing a possible candidate's answer on life issues if you're not going to accurately state what was said?"  What the media is saying, is that Walker stated that forced ultrasounds are "a cool thing out there."

What he said can be interpreted that way, and his wording leads you to believe that.  Implying that making ultrasounds mandatory is not a "crazy idea", then saying ultrasounds are, "a lovely thing" and "a cool thing out there" to prove that point kinda sounds like an equation to me.

Then Dana steps in it even worse.  From her article:

Anyone with the reading comprehension of a dolphin knows that Walker was specifically describing ultrasound images, not the legislation itself -- which yes, it is cool that women seeking an abortion as a form of birth control must think and see the life they are ending before ending it.

Getting my dolphin reading comprehension glasses on, this makes it sound even more like Dana says it (the legislation) is a "cool thing out there".  While I think Dana did that on purpose, it may also show that lately, she's been slipping.  You hear someone you are interviewing, and want to look good, say something that can be misinterpreted, your next question should be about clarification.  Dana did not do that here.  Maybe balancing a home life, kids, a husband, a radio show and a TV show is more than any amount of SuperBeets can help.

I am game, though.  Let Mr. Walker have a pass.  He didn't mean to equate mandatory ultrasounds for abortions as being lovely or cool.  I wonder if there is an example of someone on the right misinterpreting something someone on the left said?  Oh, I don't know, maybe one Dana Loesch?

Back in February, Dana had another article with the flashy headline, "Michael Bloomberg: We Need To Disarm Minorities".  Here is how she interprets what Bloomberg said:

Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25. Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.

Did he say this?   Well, here is what he really said:

It’s controversial, but first thing is all of your — 95 percent of your murders, and murderers, and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all of the cops. They are male, minorities, 15 to 25. That’s true in New York, it’s true in virtually every city in America. And that's where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people getting killed. First thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive.

 There are a few irregularities here.  He said 95% of murders, murderers and victims, not just murderers.  He states we need to get the guns out of the hands of people getting killed, not the "whole group" (in this case, just the murderers).  He states that the first thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive, not take guns away and keep them alive.

This leads Dana to make more mistakes in her article further down the line.

Additionally, Bloomberg can't do math. 

To Bloomberg's credit, there is a 93% statistic on murder but it describes the percentage of black Americans killed by other black Americans.

Although Bloomberg didn't say black Americans, he said minorities.

No, 95% of murders are not young black men. 

Well, she's getting that fact right, but again, Bloomberg isn't talking about black men, or murders, but minorities and murderers and victims between 15 and 25. This seems to be the stat Bloomberg was talking about.

I want to point out the irony of the mayor who championed the loosey law in NYC -- which brought officers to engage Eric Garner -- discussing black male lives.

Isn't is ironic?  Don't 'cha think?  What Dana is missing here is while there was a law in place to not sell loosies, blaming Bloomberg for something that happened the year after he left office, the fact that tax rates on cigarettes were increased after he left office, and enforcement was stepped up after he left office, means there is a lot more to it that Bloomberg's supposed infatuation with loosies.

So Dana did the same thing Politico did, probably to an even greater extent, as Bloomberg never even said the words, "We Need To Disarm Minorities", and Dana to this day hasn't changed her headline.

What I find hilarious though is the title of the webpage for the article she wrote on the Walker misquote, which you can find by looking at the source code, "Politico deliberately used a quote from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on ultrasound images." Hey, sometimes Dana can be right after all.

Female talk show host offended by Feminist Columnist Offended By Carly Fiorina Run

Feminist Columnist Offended By Carly Fiorina Run

I am offended.  Let's see how this works, by doing a graph-by-graph rundown of what Dana said:

Normally I'd respond with a shrug and say "Oh heavens, you're offended? Who cares," but this was too delicious to pass. You can read the whole thing here or join me in a graph-by-graph mocking below:

Normally, if a Christian said this, I would yawn and turn the page.  Christians are a lot nicer, but also boring.  I mean, isn't it a sin to mock?

Marcus acts as though she's being a real rebel by demonstrating opposition to a conservative candidate based on her gender. Lock up the liquor and cigs! Unfortunately that shtick was beaten to death in 2008 with Sarah Palin. Palin was perfectly qualified as a governor -- compared to a community organizer who'd never worked in the private sector -- but her dastardly Republican affiliation magically invalidated all of her accomplishments. No conservative woman will ever truly meet the left's qualifications. 

Marcus? Is a girl?  I'm confused. Maybe it's because when you introduce the writer of an article you should actually use a full name. Any journalism school dropout knows th... Oh, wait, never mind.

Why is it people forget Obama was a Senator, and worked at a law firm?   Isn't working at a law firm the public sector?

Please list the Liberal women that will meet the qualifications of conservatives.  Yeah, crickets, just as I thought.

Elected office is the only job category for which everyone actually has a right to apply (in keeping with Constitutional requirements). Elected office wasn't designed to be an industry. Seats aren't to be willed to offspring. Positions of service don't exist to create a political class -- they are service positions held by everyday American folk. It should be a sacrifice, like jury duty, not a recreation of the British monarchy. Voters will weigh candidates against each other during the primary process and decide for themselves if her, or any candidate's, past experience is relevant. 

Everyone?  My son can throw his hat in the ring for president?  Okay, so not everyone.

Marcus stated that Fiorina's background doesn't qualify her for President. The leap of faith is? Hillary is not qualified because her husband was president?  You are right, though.  Candidates will be judged on their merits.  Just like Obama, who got two terms, was judged and found worthy.

No one cares that you're offended, Ruth.

I care.  Care with a Christian love some Christians could learn to emulate.

Yes, the Benghazi disaster, the selling of policy through the State Department for donations to the money laundering scheme they call the Clinton Foundation, it's all so very romantic and résumé-worthy.

Just a short list.  State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Foster Care Independence Act,  increased research funding for prostate cancer, spearheaded investigations into Gulf War Syndrome, created the office on Violence Against Women; oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; and was the most traveled Secretary of State.

All of those are true.  The two you have stated have either been debunked (by Darryll Issa no less) or not been proven true. 

I'm surprised that anyone can make this argument with a straight face considering the thin resume of the current President (archives failed to turn up a Marcus column excoriating the ascension of a community organizer). I disagree: politics is business. You're dealing with the business of the nation. In fact, living outside of the beltway in the real world and operating in the dynamic environment of business is very much like governance. The worst leaders are those who spend their one-percenter existences far removed from the reality of those whose contributions make the country work.

It is not her face writing that story, by the way.  That would just be silly.  

By the way, your Google-fu must be terrible, or you just didn't try too hard.  Try the search term, "Ruth Marcus Obama Inex-" and Google will actually finish that word for you, and the second page holds a link for you:

The Audacity of Nope

Now if you wish to revive your Google-fu cred, tell me how well presidents who had a business background have done in this country.  Nah, do not bother.  It is a fruitless search.

Personally, I loathe HP with the burning passion of a thousand suns. They bought Palm, which made the Palm Pre -- the iPhone before the iPhone -- and its beautiful WebOS, which Apple completely copied in later updates to iOS. I was a Palm acolyte. They were ahead of their time. HP bought them around the same time they unveiled their tablets, and then announced that they would no longer support the products. It was a disaster. I was infuriated. I took my day-old tablet back to the store, dumped my Palm Pre, and was forced into the iOS world (I love Apple products, but it wasn't the same). Fiorina's replacement, Mark Hurd, orchestrated and ruined the acquisition of that product. All of this said, Fiorina presided over HP during the dot-com bust (which naturally saw layoffs) and took the reigns of HP right at the start. I realize Marcus's generation may not be so web-inclined, but the timeline is important if you're going to use it to disqualify a candidate. HP could have folded -- but didn't -- and Fiorina doubled its revenue while tripling innovation.

The Palm Pre was released in 2009.  The iPhone was released in 2007.  I fail to see how the Pre was the iPhone before the iPhone.

While people loved the palm prē, it was plagued by quality issues.  webOS, while a good operating system was not up to snuff. It was built on a browser basically (Webkit, Safari is based on it, Chrome is based on a fork of it). Hardware was not good enough at the time to run it smoothly..  HP developed the HP Palm Pre3 and never released it in the US because webOS failed HP.  

With the purchase of Compaq, HP grew under Fiorina's tenure for sure.  She also lost stock owners a boatload of cash because of stupid mergers, and buying failed products.  She was polarizing and disenfranchising. Tripling innovation?  You get that from an article from 1999?  The year she took over HP?

What would be sexist is to not do your due diligence on Fiorina's time at HP and examining what HP was up against before Fiorina even assumed control. Waxing gender grievance based on party lines is insufficient analysis to justify disqualification.

And what would be racist is to not do your due diligence on Obama's time as President and examining what he was up against before he even assumed control of the White House.  Waxing grievance based on party lines is insufficient analysis to justify disqualification.  Wait, is that plagiarism?  Any journalism school dropout should know th... oh wait, never mind.

One question though.  There are six missing paragraphs from the Marcus article that you didn't give a graph-by-graph on. I'll post them below in fairness. Incomplete work?  Sounds like something... oh, never mind.

Fiorina smartly doesn’t flinch from discussing her ouster; she trumpets her firing “in a boardroom brawl.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Fiorina crowed that “we doubled the size of the company” and lectured that, in business, “facts and numbers and results actually count. It’s not just about words as it is in politics.”

Okay, those numbers. Hewlett-Packard did grow under Fiorina’s tenure from 1999 to 2005 — but that was due to an ill-advised merger with Compaq that cost HP shareholders $24 billion and bought them a computer business that diluted the value of HP’s high-margin printer business.

“This was a big bet that didn’t pay off, that didn’t even come close to attaining what Fiorina and HP’s board said was in store,” Carol Loomis concluded in a devastating Fortune magazine piece.

As Yahoo News detailed, HP stock fell by more than half during Fiorina’s tenure, while its technology cohorts performed “not as badly or much better.”

Fiorina stumbled as a campaign surrogate for John McCain in 2008, famously saying that vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and then the GOP presidential nominee himself weren’t fit to run a company. (She was right.) 

She failed in her previous bid for elective office in the 2010 California Senate race, losing to incumbent Barbara Boxer by 10 points in a Republican year.

The Garland Experiment II: The Notorious JJP

I know I focus on Dana in this blog, but I would like today to focus on someone else. Her name is Judge Jeanine Pirro (JJP).  And she says some pretty fascinating things:

Well, you get the idea, right?  Opening her latest show, she touched on what I am calling the Garland Experiment. Since the most violent fringe of Muslims hate the drawing of Mohammed so much that they may be incited to kill, let's offend all Muslims to get our point across.  Here it is in all it's glory:

That first line is totally right.  The first amendment is not negotiable.  And not because it was so important that that founding fathers made it the first one.  No, because it is an important one.  It allows me to write the words you are reading on this screen.  It allows JJP to have a TV show on Fox, or Dana to have a radio show and TV show.  Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton and others are also included in that.  And they can say what they want, true or not, because the first amendment says so.

That amendment is not all encompassing, however.  Say "fuck" on broadcast TV or Radio, and the government will fine you.  Falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, and expect the ghost of Oliver Wendel Holmes to come to your house with cuffs in hand.  Say something libelous or slanderous, and expect your wallet to take a hit.  Not all speech is allowed under the first amendment.

This case, the Garland Experiment, is not one that is restricted.  As I have said in my previous post, it is their right to draw Mohammed cartoons, just foolish.  And in this case, no government entity is coming after them to tell them to stop.  Most from the moderate and left are not saying they need to stop either, just be more reasonable.

This is not a first amendment issue.  Anyone on either fringe trying to make it so is wrong, simply because the government is not going to limit this speech.  But I think a majority of the people out there know this.  I would like to focus on JJP for a second, though.  Remember what she said... the First Amendment is non-negotiable.  Then come with me in a time machine to 2011, and let us explore how strongly we should not negotiate with the first amendment:

The money line comes at about 1:35: Should we revisit the First Amendment?  Why are we revisiting it here?  Because a Muslim said something JJP didn't like? Forget the fact that it is not only a case of freedom of speech, but also freedom of religion; but if it is speech that is a crime, the first amendment already covers that. JJP just wishes to silence those who think differently.

Of course, this is the woman who said "bomb them" in that first video.  Why would we expect any less than hypocrisy from her on the subject of people of the Muslim faith.

Edit: I just wanted to give a call out to the David Pakman Show for running this story. 

Thanks, Dave! I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Garland experiment

First, allow me to introduce you to Dana Loesch, circa 2010:

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

Two things are shocking about this video.  One... man, Dana.  Did your stylist use the crooked bowl?  Two... Mellissa Harris-Perry?  In this case, Harris-Lacewell, but seeing her without the braids is pretty weird.  It's a classic.

I listened to Friday's show, and the second hour was... weird.  I mean, the argument she gives is basically, everyone needs to draw Mohammed cartoons, because creeping Sharia.  Here's the problem with that.  It isn't a very tolerant Christian thing to do. 

The hour started out with a clip of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Franklin Graham, and Graham is spot on when he states that it is legally fine, but probably not the right thing spiritually.  Dana tries to nullify his vast years of experience by quoting 1 Timothy 4-12.  While Dana is correct her age should not be a factor here, she falls a little short on the rest of the scripture.

Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.

 If Dana is the example, that's a religion I don't wish to follow, for obvious reasons.  In speech, she disparages people because they don't believe as she does.  She conducts herself with segments like Mailbag of Hate (bragging that people that hate her fill her pockets with cash, some off which she brags that she gives to the church, assuring her reward here on earth).  While she shows love for many things, love for much of her fellow man is up for debate.  She obviously has faith, however misguided it may be.  And purity... well, I won't get into that.

If you wish to listen, follow this link.

My opinion?  They have every right to draw Mohammed cartoons. Go for it, have fun. In my opinion, the next thing they need to expose is how violent black people get when you call them the "N" word. It's the same principle, is it not?

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.6sP4V6GW.dpuf

A wise person once said this:

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

...[T]he bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate.

That wise person?  Dana Loesch, in the video I posted above.  And if you take out the language about the left and right, you get this:

[T]he bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe. [T]he difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people ... like to sit here and portray that the fringe  ... represent the whole ... and that's not accurate.

Now that's a Dana I can get behind.  And Dana, don't get too down on Dana circa 2010.  Just remember 1 Timothy 4:12.  Don't hate because she's young.  Although if you hate on her because of her haircut, I'm behind you.

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.ZJPA3MNy.dpuf

ut the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.6sP4V6GW.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.6sP4V6GW.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.6sP4V6GW.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.6sP4V6GW.dpuf

But the bottom line too is we know that with any large group of people, you are going to have people who are on the fringe on both sides but the difference that I'm seeing is that a lot of people on the left like to sit here and portray that the fringe on the right represent the whole of the right and that's not accurate. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/29/chris-matthews-gets-schooled-tea-partier#sthash.6sP4V6GW.dpuf