Steve Chabot Meets Norman Rockwell

The other day I posted a piece about Rep. Steve Chabot's (R-OH) recent town hall meeting. During this town hall meeting, Chabot banned the use of cameras (though not media cameras) and even had a Cincinnati Police Officer confiscate equipment of those who tried to record the public meeting. This was all done for, as Chabot claimed, "security purposes" of those in attendance but as ThinkProgress pointed out, the real reason was so that people "didn't make a show" of the event.

The backlash from First Amendment advocates was intense and led to Chabot announcing that cameras would be permitted at his next event.

It is curious why some Conservatives claim to champion "personal freedom" while campaigning, but then deploy Orwellian tactics that are anything but open and honest when at a public event. Remember Ohio State Treasury Candidate Josh Mandel, whose staffer tried to block my camera during a public event in 2010? Or how about Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) who recently distributed a "blacklist" of local activists who may criticize him at town hall meetings?

It appears that Rep. Chabot has fallen in with the crowd who are first to preach love for the Constitution and love for protesters (especially when speaking to them), but who take a much different stance when it is time to put those words into practice.

This leads me to a reader submitted graphic that might make an appropriate campaign sign for Chabot in the future. The artwork on this one is credited to Roger De Bris, "with apologies to Norman Rockwell":




This piece is cross posted here.

Steve Chabot Bans Cameras at Public Town Hall Meeting "For Security Purposes"

Thinking about taking a camera to record Rep. Steve Chabot's (R-OH) next public town hall meeting? Think again! According to this report from ThinkProgress, Chabot banned constituents from filming the town hall meeting:

Fearing pushback on issues like ending Medicare and corporate tax dodging, Chabot took an extraordinary step in order to prevent a possible “Youtube moment”: he banned constituents from filming the town hall. Outside the town hall were multiple signs reading, “For Security Purposes, Cameras Are NOT Permitted.” In fact, on at least two separate occasions, middle-aged constituents who tried to record the public event had their cameras confiscated and were asked to leave.

Oddly, media were permitted to film the event which undercuts the claim that cameras were banned "for security purposes". What is the real reason for Chabot's ban on public filming of the event? ThinkProgress has the answer:

...as one of Chabot’s staffers told ThinkProgress, they wanted to “prevent” people from “making a show” of the event. Indeed, Chabot and his staff were worried enough about citizens voicing their anger at his policies that they only accepted pre-screened questions chosen by the congressman’s staff.

Check out this video that was captured of Cincinnati Police confiscating cameras from citizens who were attempting to tape this public town hall meeting:

Bill O'Reilly isn't the Biggest Fan of Journalism

Check this out:



Ben Armbruster at ThinkProgress pointed this out:

Fox News and O’Reilly may not “break stories” that directly “hurt anybody,” but they certainly haven’t made great efforts to take targets off anyone’s back either. In fact, O’Reilly producer Jesse Waters regularly stalks and ambushes anyone O’Reilly and his goons disagree with (like TP’s own Amanda Terkel), even if it means following them home and confronting them in places such as their garages.

Fair enough, but I think the more revealing angle of O'Reilly's statement is that he admitted that his network doesn't hold journalism in very high regard. O'Reilly said the following (emphasis mine):

And I think you raise a very interesting point in what you said. And you said — I’m glad you mentioned me because that got attention And then people to think about this. We don’t break stories that are going to interfere with President Obama or President Bush or whoever’s in office if we feel that the story is going to hurt anybody, our military, our policymakers. We’ll hold it back. Okay? We’re not The New York Times. We’re not trying to do that.

I would be interested to hear what O'Reilly means by this. What is meant by the word "interfere" when O'Reilly says that he doesn't break stories that are going to interfere with policymakers, the President, or the military? Would breaking a story like that of Pat Tillman "interfere" with the goals of the military? Would bringing on dissenting voices about war "interfere" with the goals of President Bush and President Obama? Would exposing an affair like that of Mark Sanford, "interfere" with his career or "hurt" him personally?

Sounds like O'Reilly is looking out for everyone but the "folks".

Open Letter to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Regarding New Her Comment Questioning Obama's Citizenship

Traveling prevented me from attending the local tea-party event at the Voice of America Park in West Chester this weekend, but it looks like ThinkProgress was able to capture a fun moment between a birther and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH). As you will see by this video, they were able to capture Schmidt agreeing with this woman before staffers tried to block the ThinkProgress cameras:



As ThinkProgress pointed out, Loveland Magazine obtained a statement from Schmidt in July of this year in which she stated:

“The President is indeed a Citizen of this country. I voted as a Member of the House to certify the vote of the Electoral College electing him as our President. I may not agree with his politics but there is no doubt he is our President and has my full respect as such.”

Will the real Jean Schmidt please stand up?

UPDATE: I have sent an open letter to Rep. Schmidt through her campaign website requesting clarification. The text of the letter is below and I will post any response that I receive in full.

from: Chris Johnson
to: answers@jeanschmidt.com
date: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM
subject: OPEN LETTER: Clarification on Rep. Schmidt's Position Requested

Good afternoon,

This past July in Loveland Magazine, Rep. Schmidt was quoted as saying the following regarding the citizenship of President Obama:

“The President is indeed a Citizen of this country. I voted as a Member of the House to certify the vote of the Electoral College electing him as our President. I may not agree with his politics but there is no doubt he is our President and has my full respect as such.”

However, this previous Saturday, at the Voice of America Rally in West Chester, Rep. Schmidt was videotaped by ThinkProgress saying the following while interacting with an attendee:

WOMAN: "He cannot be a President by our Constitution"

REP. SCHMIDT: "I agree with you but the courts don't"

You can view the video by clicking on this link. Given that these statements are contradictory in nature, I am requesting clarification on Rep. Schmidt's position regarding President Obama's Constitutional authority to hold the Office of the Presidency. Does Rep. Schmidt agree with the position which she expressed in Loveland Magazine? If so, then why did she express the opposite position while speaking with the woman in the video clip above?

I appreciate your time in clarifying this matter and I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,
--
Chris Johnson
[email]
The Cincinnati Beacon
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

UPDATE: Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) has released a statement through her office. That statement is as follows:

Washington, D.C. - “The President is indeed a Citizen of this country and constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. I may not agree with his politics but there is no doubt he is the President and has my full respect. The video clip being circulated by some is part of a longer conversation with a woman who was very upset about a number of things. I, in no way, agree with her belief that President Obama is not a citizen of the United States. I did agree with her view that the constitution should be strictly interpreted. I was trying to be kind to a woman who was trying desperately and passionately to express her views. She has the right to her beliefs, no matter how much I disagree with them.”

While this statement was aimed at providing clarification of Schmidt's remarks in the video posted above, it is odd that Schmidt's defense is that she was "trying to be kind" to a woman who was trying to express her views. It appears that Schmidt's way of being kind to people is to tell them that she agrees with their views, even when she doesn't.

Fox News Says Tea Parties are Not Funded by the Right-Wing While Promoting Newt Gingrich's Think-Tank

Kudos to ThinkProgress for catching this gem.

During today's Fox News coverage of the tea parties, host Gretchen Carlson attempted to push back against those who are pointing out that the tea parties are being funded by corporate lobbyists. Carlson interviews three organizers of a tea party this morning and asks them to respond to those who say that the protests are a "right-wing conspiracy". The organizers deny it, but at the same time, the chyron that is scrolling at the bottom of the screen directs those who wish to learn more about the Bergen County tea party to go to the Americans Solutions for Winning the Future. This organization happens to be Newt Gingrich's corporate-funded think tank. Watch the video:

Astroturf Tea Parties

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Fox News host Glenn Beck and his recent antics during an on-air special during which he repeatedly broke into tears because he loves (and fears) for his country. Since Beck aired that special, video clips of the program have circulated around the Internet, Stephen Colbert has mocked Beck for his odd behavior, and Fox News continues their mission to be the voice of opposition to the Obama Administration.

As many of you have probably read by now, there are protests scheduled in various cities around the United States for April 15. These "tea-parties" were first conceived after CNBC host Rick Santelli floated the idea in his now infamous on-air rant. Since then people have gathered in cities across America to protest against the government bailouts, taxation, spending, and large deficits, supposedly in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party where colonists were protesting taxation without representation.

Though many of these protests claim to hold no party affiliation, there has been a common theme of railing specifically against the Obama Administration's policies with some participants echoing some of the ugly sentiments that we saw during the campaign. While it is clear that people are very angry at the Obama Administration, it is not always clear why or what alternatives are being suggested at these tea-parties. Andrew Sullivan explains:

It's a protest of the bank bailouts orchestrated by Bush and now Obama. But surely these tea-partiers understand what would happen if we didn't bail the banks out. Are they advocating letting major banks fail? Or are they advocating a Krugman-style government take-over? No idea.

...

It's a protest against tax hikes. But there have barely been any! Are they arguing that the planned return to Clinton era marginal rates is an outrage worthy of the colonists ... only months after an election in which the winning candidate ran on exactly that platform?

...

It's a protest against government debt. Yay! I will leave aside the somewhat awkward fact that Fox News and Pajamas Media barely covered the massive debt racked up by the Republicans during a period of economic growth.

Don't get me wrong, there are some people who are also angry at the Republicans for getting us into this economic mess, but as Fox News has entered the scene to actively promote these acts that stem from supposed populist anger, the situation gets more complicated and seems a bit, well...contrived.

Fox News is dispatching their anchors all around the country in order to "cover" these tea party protests and for weeks now, have gone beyond just covering the story and engaged in actively embracing and promoting these events:



In fact, yesterday Fox News host Stuart Varney even exclaimed: “It’s now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!”.

Not only is Fox News promoting these tea parties, but corporate donors are helping to fund the demonstrations. From ThinkProgress:

...the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily
staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests:
– Freedom Works staffers coordinate conference calls among protesters, contacting conservative activists to give them “sign ideas, sample press releases, and a map of events around the country.”
– Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to “take over” the planning of local events in Florida.
– Freedom Works provides how-to guides for delivering a “clear message” to the public and media.
– Freedom Works has several domain addresses — some of them made to look like they were set up by amateurs — to promote the protests.
– Americans for Prosperity is writing press releases and planning the events in New Jersey, Arizona, New Hampshire, Missouri, Kansas, and several other states.

Freedom Works is an organization run by registered lobbyist and former Republican Majority Leader, Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity is run by Tim Phillips, Ralph Reed's former lobbying partner. Is there any doubt that these organizations are actively involved in planning these "grassroots" uprisings? From the Freedom Works website:

Thank you for joining the massive movement of citizens that are opposed to the trillions of dollars in federal spending and the bailouts of Wall Street and failed businesses. With your help, we have been able to organize hundreds of Taxpayer Tea Parties across the country, from Santa Barbara, California to Amarillo, Texas, and all the way to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Together, as one united force for liberty, we can take our country back!

and where does the "donate" button link to if you are interested in donating to causes like the tea-party:

Your contribution to the FreedomWorks Foundation will make a real difference
in the fight for limited government and economic freedom. Thank you. I look
forward to working with you.

Sincerely,
Matt Kibbe
President and
CEO

As Jane Hamsher points out, Matt Kibbe was behind the attempt to keep Ralph Nader off of the ballot in the state of Oregon in 2004 which led to a complaint with the FEC for illegal collusion with the GOP.

So we have a supposed "grassroots" movement of people who are opposed to taxation, deficits, bailouts, and a host of other issues, who are having tea parties that are being promoted by Fox News (whose stated mission is to be the voice of opposition to this Administration) and funded by corporate lobbyists. As Paul Krugman and others have pointed out, this means that this movement is not a spontaneous grassroots uprising of the people, but an astroturf movement.
Here is an exchange that happened on Fox Business Network recently where a Think Progress editor called out Fox for promoting these tea parties. The host of the program says that there is a "big difference" in covering something and promoting something, but check out the what the host says coming out of the segment:

Thank you, panel. Excellent job. Okay. Why it’s time to party like it’s 1773. Next.

[…]

What is right though is the growing chorus of Americans that want their country and their liberties back. Anti-tax tea parties will happen all over the country Wednesday, carrying on in the American spirit that will send a message to Washington and Wall Street. … Remember, you have a right to voice your opinion and fight back.

the video:

As Predicted, O'Reilly Airs Segment that Smears and Distorts

Last night, as expected, Bill O'Reilly aired the piece in which his producer ambushed Amanda Terkel of ThinkProgress. In my entry yesterday, I highlighted some excerpts from Terkel's account of the confrontation and mentioned that I expected O'Reilly to heavily spin the ambush, spin his own comments that Terkel criticized, and bring someone on the show to help him smear Terkel. O'Reilly, did not disappoint:



Immediately following this clip, O'Reilly brought on someone who has worked with the Alexa Foundation and with Alexa's family to help denounce Terkel, ThinkProgress, and NBC. O'Reilly's account of this scenario is heavily spun and he leaves out certain details such as:

- The initial audio clip from his radio show that Terkel and ThinkProgress initially criticized. O'Reilly mentions that the clip is on his website, but does not address the content of the clip nor does he defend this comments in that clip. Interesting considering that those comments are at the heart of this issue.

- O'Reilly fails to mention how he obtained comments from Terkel. He does not mention that he never invited her on his program to formally address the situation nor does he mention that he had his producer follow Terkel for two hours while she was vacationing in Virginia to ambush her during a time when she would be least prepared to discuss this issue. Perhaps O'Reilly doesn't mention this fact because he would then be caught in another lie. From the August 24, 2007 airing of The O'Reilly Factor:

As you may know, "The Factor" occasionally sends out producers to confront people who will not answer serious questions about controversial things they do, like judges giving child rapists probation, for example.

Now, some object to displays like these. But we feel they're a vital tool in holding public servants accountable for their actions, and we do not go after people lightly. We always ask them on the program first, or to issue a clear statement explaining their actions.

As Terkel points out in a follow-up post, she is not a public servant and she was never asked on the program first.

It seems as though if you make Bill mad enough by highlighting comments that he has made, he will send his producers to stalk you, ambush you, and then from the comfort of his studio, he will call you a "villain" while distorting the facts.

This kind of hypocrisy was outlined a while ago by Jon Stewart, but it certainly applies to this situation as well:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Bill O'Reilly's Right to Privacy
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things w/ Demetri Martin Political Humor

O'Reilly's Latest Adventure in Ambush Journalism

Brace yourselves, you may think that I am not feeling well after I tell you this:

I want you to watch at least a portion of The O'Reilly Factor tonight. I know, I know...sounds like I've lost my mind, but go with me on this for a moment.

Amanda Terkel over at ThinkProgress, has posted an interesting account of her being ambushed by producers from The O'Reilly Factor. To provide a bit of context to the situation, it is important to know that Terkel recently wrote a piece critical of comments made by Bill O'Reilly. The comments made by O'Reilly back in August, deal with the issue of rape; in particular, the rape and killing of an 18 year-old girl named Jennifer Moore:

Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.

As Terkel points out, O'Reilly's comments were part of a larger discussion on the dangers of drunkenness. O'Reilly also used the example of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade and concluded:

"I think it’s safe to say that if Mel Gibson didn’t get drunk, he wouldn’t be in this terrible situation he finds himself in and if a young woman, 18-year-old Jennifer Moore of Harrington Park, NJ, didn’t get drunk, she’d be alive today.”

The issue in this case, as Terkel wrote about, is that O'Reilly seems to be implying that this young woman bears some responsibility for being raped and murdered because of the way that she dressed and because she had consumed alcohol. Terkel wrote about these comments because O'Reilly was slated to speak on March 19 at the Alexa Foundation, a group committed to supporting rape survivors, and it seemed interesting regarding O'Reilly's past comments outlined above.

Now that you know the background, here is the interesting part. Terkel says that while she was on vacation with a friend this past Saturday, O'Reilly's producer, Jesse Watters, ambushed her and demanded that she apologize for causing "pain and suffering" to rape victims and their families.

Many of you know that Bill O'Reilly has a history of using so-called "ambush journalism" to distort serious issues and then use these pieces to launch attacks on those who are ambushed from the comfort of his studio and without a chance for adequate response from the subjects of his smears. This is what we have come to expect from O'Reilly. What is interesting in this case is the context of the ambush. Here is a clip from Terkel's aforementioned piece:

I expect O’Reilly to air this “interview” at some point this week, possibly as early as tonight. I have no expectation that he will show the entire altercation or give the entire story about what happened, so here is the full account, offering a glimpse inside the O’Reilly harrassment machine:

– The Stalking: Watters and his camera man accosted me at approximately 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, March 21, in Winchester, VA, which is a two-hour drive from
Washington, DC. My friend and I were in this small town for a short weekend
vacation and had told no one about where we were going. I can only infer that
the two men staked out my apartment and then followed me for two hours. Looking back, my friend and I remember seeing their tan SUV following us for much of the trip.
– The Ambush: Shortly after checking into our lodgings, we emerged and immediately saw two men walking toward us calling out my name. Watters said he was from Fox News, but never said his or his companion’s name, nor did he say he was with The O’Reilly Factor.
– The Surprise Attack: Watters immediately began asking me why I was causing “pain and suffering” to the Alexa Foundation. He never gave me the context for his questions. Confused, I repeatedly asked him what he was talking about and whether he could refresh my memory, but he just continued shouting his question.
– The Evasion: I said that it was inappropriate for O’Reilly to imply that just because a woman may be drunk and/or dressed in a certain way, she should expect to be raped. Watters asked me whether I had listened to the interview (which I had) and claimed that O’Reilly had made the comments in the context of a commentary on Mel Gibson/drunkenness. When I tried to ascertain why he was attacking ThinkProgress in particular — even though other sites had also covered the story — he said that we were part of the “smear pipeline,” which also included the “Soros-funded” Media Matters. He ignored my comments when I asked if Fox News also smears people.
– Setting A Guilt Trap: Watters ended the charade by demanding that I look into the camera and apologize to the Alexa Foundation and rape victims. I told them that I don’t speak through Fox News and if someone from the Alexa Foundation would like to personally call me, I’d be happy to speak with that person.
– More Stalking: The camera man then continued to film me as I walked down the block. After a few minutes while I waited at the light to cross the street, Watters called him back and they left.

As Terkel predicted, it now appears that O'Reilly plans to air the segment on tonight's show. So now that you know all of this information, watch The O'Reilly Factor tonight and see how the ambush is spun, how O'Reilly spins his own comments that Terkel criticized, and who O'Reilly may bring on to attack both ThinkProgress and Amanda Terkel. Terkel says that she was never asked for a statement or to appear on O'Reilly's program prior to the ambush and that she has unsuccessfully contacted FoxNews for a response to the incident.