Posts Tagged ‘Dan Riehl’

Dan Riehl Fighting for Life – Update: Out of ICU!

Saturday, October 27th, 2012

Conservative blogger Dan Riehl is in the ICU at the Fairfax County Hospital. This is terribly sad news, as by now, most Internet-savvy conservatives are familiar with him via Breitbart.com, his own Riehl World View, as well as Twitter, and frequent hat-tips to his blog by radio phenomenon Mark Levin.  Dan has had emergency pulmonary bypass surgery.  Gary P. Jackson has full coverage of the situation here.

Dan is a first-rate blogger, and most of my readers will be familiar with him.  Send prayers, love and support his way.  He’s always been a great fighter for conservatism.  Let us hope and pray Dan wins his personal fight.

UPDATE: Dan was moved out of ICU. Gary Jackson has the great news here.  Let’s hope there is a full and speedy recovery!

Advertisements

Drudge Distort: What Will Be the Reaction to the War on Gingrich?

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

The State of Dis-Union

Matt Drudge is making a lot of hay over Gingrich’s alleged anti-Reagan speech, that we know know wasn’t, and he’s clearly sympathetic to Mitt Romney, but why is it that conservatives are reacting badly against this?  The answer is simpler than most will admit, and it comes down to just two things.  First, the conservative base and Tea Party folk in the GOP are beginning to doubt media altogether, and they’re seeing through the obvious anti-Gingrich bias, but more importantly, I believe it comes down to this more than any other thing:  They are sick to death of the media and the GOP establishment selecting the Republican nominee.  I think this explains everything you need to know why conservatives and Tea Party folk look at these exaggerated, out-of-context headlines and stories, and just say “No.”

If you wish to know how dishonest Matt Drudge has been on this story, up in the top-left of his site all morning Thursday were three stories agitating against Gingrich’s alleged anti-Reagan sentiments, but the third of these, from 1988, has already been debunked. Why didn’t Drudge take this down?  No, he waited until it was thoroughly debunked, but the damage of the lie was done. He left it up in exactly the same way he allowed his anti-Newt stories of last Wednesday and Thursday to remain up most of the day, despite the fact that it had been revealed most were over-hyped re-hashings of old stories.  Drudge has relocated this a bit, but this is how it appeared just more than an hour ago:

NEWT FLASHBACK 1983: REAGAN RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL ‘DECAY’…
NEWT 1986: ‘The Reagan administration has failed, is failing…
NEWT 1988: ‘If Bush runs as continuation of Reaganism he will lose’…
VIDEO…

How do I know this is dishonest?  The link to the video is a Youtube link to a highly edited clip, taken out of context, and therefore made to look as though Gingrich was anti-Reagan.  When you watch the whole video selection, in its complete context, the lie becomes obvious.  Drudge is doing this purposefully, and if he will lie to you in this instance, there is no doubt he will lie to you in others.  I don’t really care what his motive is, or why he’s doing it.  This moved his recent activities from “suspicious” in my view, to reprehensible.  Thanks to Dan Riehl for exposing the truth, and providing a link to the original, full-length C-SPAN video, with the interesting portion beginning around 2:30.

Limbaugh talked about this extensively on his show today, saying the following, among other things:

“It was everything you wish was happening today, is all I can tell you. It was everything you wish the entire Republican Party was doing today. It was led by Newt Gingrich, and what was he doing? He was defending Reagan. Now, all of this stuff that hit Drudge and everywhere else last night about Newt telling everybody the country goes to hell if they continue Reaganism and that Newt insulted Reagan and that the Reagan administration failed and Iran-Contra… I never heard any of that. I started doing this particular program in Sacramento in 1984, and I was just as immersed in national politics then as I am now, and I could honestly tell you this.”

There’s a reason Rush can’t remember it the way Drudge is broadcasting it:  It didn’t happen the way Drudge’s site would lead you to believe, and this is simply a desperately disgusting attempt to do to Gingrich what has been done to others with the distortions.  A year ago, if you had told me Drudge did things this way, I would have scoffed at it, but now…

I’m clearly coming to see Drudge in a different light.

I realize that many people have many reasons to be unhappy with Gingrich on one issue or another, and I’m inclined to be annoyed with him too, but this has gone too far, in my view, and I’m not inclined to suffer it any longer.  If Drudge is going to be a media participant in this smear-fest, let him, but I won’t be adding much to his page-view statistics any longer.

The simple truth is that American conservatives and Tea Party folk are tired of the media and the GOP establishment leading them around by the noses.  It’s not that people are so infatuated with Gingrich so much as it is that they are disgusted by these tactics, and they’re simply disenchanted with the GOP establishment controlling the outcome of our primary system.

Dan Riehl Exposes Out of Context Gingrich Clip

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

Blogger Dan Riehl

Exposing another lie, Dan Riehl exposes how Gingrich’s remarks are being taken out of context to create a false impression. The forces of Romney are desperate, aren’t they?

See the full story here, at Dan Riehl’s site. He also has a link and embed of the original C-SPAN video in question.

 

Mitt Romney’s Top Contributors

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

Thanks to Dan Riehl(@DanRiehl) for tweeting this story.  If you’re not following Dan on Twitter, you might well consider it, as he runs a large number of important daily news stories. The original statistics come from the campaign money tracking site OpenSecrets.org, and I must admit it’s pretty astonishing to see such a list, even for Romney.  What it offers is some insight into where Romney’s support originates.  According to Zerohedge, Mitt Romney’s biggest contributors constitute quite a round-up:

That isn’t exactly a list of Mom and Pop shops, is it?  Nobody should be surprised that this guy doesn’t represent rank and file Republicans. Main Street? Not so much.  Wall Street?  You bet!

What remains to be seen is if all his high-powered contributions will lead to the nomination.  Mitt’s betting that it will, but that really up to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:

Men in Media: What’s Wrong With You?

Monday, September 19th, 2011

Lacking What? Now, What Else?

I wish to apologize in advance for some of the graphic language in this post.  Unfortunately, this situation has left me few alternatives but to discuss the abrasive and disgusting tone of some in the media.  I do it as a necessity because I believe Americans should know the character of the people in whom they have placed their trust. Like Andrew Breitbart’s explanation in the movie The Undefeated, I’ve concluded that there is a real problem in our culture, and among many Republican men particularly, there is now a surrender of the values we once shared, and it is expressed in a general cowardice to be seen when conservative women come under sexist, vulgar attacks.  It’s not that conservative women in politics can’t defend themselves, but when allegedly conservative outlets begin to act like the worst leftist purveyors of filth, one begins to wonder about the character of people who claim merely to be reporting the news.  Frankly, it makes me sick, and it makes me angry.  What’s happening to we men that so many of us will say nothing about it? Now, I’m going to have my say, and I’m also going to show you the truth about some in the right-wing media.

I’m a middle-aged man.  I was raised to have a baseline respect for people in general, but particularly for my elders on the presumption of their wisdom, and for women on the basis of the assumption that they had already put up with more garbage from men than they ought to have been asked to endure.  It’s not to say that women aren’t equally capable of crass and vulgar behavior, as a quick tour of our culture will demonstrate, but I was raised with that nowadays primitive (and some say “sexist”) notion that my basic reflex as a man should not include treating women as another of the boys in a locker-room discussion.

Some feminists will insist that this is still a sexist view of women, and in one sense, I can see their point, but perhaps it is because the people I love most in this world are women, I tend to restrain my language in their presence lest I be considered a first-rate jerk.  What seems to have become the norm on both sides of the sexual fence is an increasingly crass tone to every disagreement, but that is not why I write this evening.  Instead, I want to talk to you men.  I realize that the younger you are, the more inclined you may be to talking to women like one of the fellows, but I’ve become tired of men using linguistic bombast that includes references to female genitalia when speaking to women.  You can call me a “fuddy-duddy,” or “old school,” or frankly anything else your courage permits, but in my world, you use that language in front of a woman at your own peril.

I realize some of you will complain that there exists no shortage of women who rush to verbally emasculate men with the immediate reference to their “penises.”  I’ve heard it, much too often frankly, and some of them should also be ashamed.  Having covered the excuse some men will use to justify their own vulgarity, let’s move on to what I observed Sunday evening that has caused me to boil over.  I was on Twitter, and Dan Riehl re-tweeted something another had tweeted and I could hardly believe my eyes:

@Nick_Rizzuto: Can someone please give me the 411 on why there are so many sandy vaginas over this @DailyCaller Tyson/Palin story?

I knew the name from somewhere, but I couldn’t quite place it.  I clicked into his profile, and was reminded:  Rizzuto works for GBTV and TheBlaze.  I was doubly incensed given the recent Brian Sack routine on GBTV, so I sent my own response, as did a number of others.

Let me explain something to you boys who think such language is cool, and yes I said “boys” because I fear some of you are barely beyond puberty, who think this is a really effective form of argumentation: You look like an ass when you do this, and for precisely the same reason the Carlson’s outfit looked like a bunch of asses the day before, and GBTV looked like a bunch of asses on Thursday:  Using this kind of language merely demonstrates that you view the opposite sex as nothing more than their genitalia, with the motive of dehumanizing them and dismissing them.  One might well expect a thug like Mike Tyson to use such language, because we already know what the ear-chomping, punch-drunk, has-been boxer thinks of women as demonstrated by his physical and verbal violence against them, but the reason you shouldn’t engage in this is because you aren’t (or should not be)that sort of sexist thug.  I can’t believe I’m having to point this out to the erudite Tucker Carlson, the pious Glenn Beck, or his staff member Nick Rizzuto, whose most recent tweets indicate he and his wife/girlfriend(no un-PC assumptions here) have recently had a baby.

Boys, this is garbage.  Carlson, in all honesty, after your publication ran with the post it did, and Beck, after GBTV’s ridiculous “joke” of Thursday, and yeah, you too Rizzuto, I don’t know what any of you could possibly believe you have to offer to a civil discussion about any subject after this.  You’re all embarrassments to manhood.  At least Rizzuto had the good sense (or at least a sense of CYA) to delete his post, and issue an apology via twitter.  That’s the sort of thing that got Carlson off the hook, somewhat, when he did a very similar thing back in March of this year.  Apologies are unlikely to help him now, however, as Greta Van Susteren is on his case after Dan Riehl pursued the story all day Saturday.  Mr. Beck has a special problem, and it’s one he’s yet to address:  Two of these three incidents involve people who work for him, and one took place on his new network.

I’m disgusted by this sort of conduct.  Carlson, your staff should know better too.  Beck, you ought to clear something up with your people.  I’m beginning to wonder about the sort of culture that pervades these institutions of allegedly conservative thought: Is it that you’ve now become the caricatures the left has drawn?  I simply don’t see any excuse for this.  Nobody is running stories about the unsubstantiated sexual improprieties of any of the other candidates.  Don’t pretend there are none.  Sure, they’re awful and tawdry and probably false, but that same characterization fits what’s been said to date about Sarah Palin. What we have here is a cowardly attack on Governor Palin, and it’s bad enough when the left does this, but it ought never to come from our side.

Worse, Carlson’s staff lets rip with a story about Mike Tyson’s commentary and his utterly foul and violent descriptions, and nobody at Carlson’s organization seems to think anybody has done anything wrong, except Dan Riehl for reporting on it on Saturday.  No, they were simply “doing their jobs” to report the news.  Ditto Beck’s own site The Blaze, which did a similar garbage pass-along story on Joe McGinniss’s salacious novel.  Then there was Sack on GBTV with his jokes over which even the studio audience groaned nervously.  Now Nick Rizzuto, from The Blaze and GBTV says this?

No way.  It’s not accidental, and it’s not merely “doing one’s job” to pass along stories as “News” the sole purpose of which is to further a smear, using people like Mike Tyson and Joe McGinniss as surrogates to deliver it.

Add to this Nick Rizzuto’s tweet, and what it looks like to me is a bunch of men who are using crude smears in order to dismiss another woman.  Why do this?  What could be their motives?  You tell me.

Monday morning, a colleague of Rizzuto’s, S.E. Cupp, also from GBTV, tweets:

@secupp: Pretty sure Tyson’s the pig here, not Tucker. RT @politico: Greta: Tucker’s a ‘pig’ for Palin story http://politi.co/pJAXSW
Now another Beck associate is piling on in this mess to defend Carlson?  I like S.E.Cupp, but I think she’s gotten this wrong.  Worse, I am beginning to wonder what flavor of Kool-Aid they’re drinking over at GBTV.  While all of this goes on, The Blaze runs a story about how Howard Kurtz is complained that his own network was ganging up on Perry during last week’s GOP debate. Well, at least I think I’ve figured out the flavor of the Kool-Aid.

Another conservative leaps into the fray questioning Carlson’s motives:

@marklevinshow: Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. Why were his vicious words about Sarah Palin considered newsworthy? I think… http://fb.me/11CP0a4pf

Yes, thankfully, there are still some real men.

Added below is the screen capture of the Tweets in question from Sunday evening(Start at bottom and read up):

Tweets from 9/18/2011

RINO with a Bow-Tie?

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

Born to Wear Bow-Ties?

Is it just me, or has Tucker Carlson finally blown the last remnants of his cover?  I remember how I first became familiar with him back in the 1990s when Readers’ Digest brought him aboard to write columns, and I also remember that it was the leftward shift of that age-old periodical at the same time that caused my cancellation of a subscription.  These days, Carlson appears on FoxNews and other venues, as well as on the Daily Caller for which he is editor, and still he offers what I consider to be clap-trap commentary, seeming vaguely conservative, but under further examination leaning toward elitist GOP nonsense.  His Tweets and columns have occasionally caused some to wonder if there isn’t some underlying misogyny, but neither knowing Carlson nor his staff, I can only guess that it’s mere opportunism now permitting the excuse of becoming purveyors of filth with their “reporting” on Mike Tyson’s disgusting remarks about Sarah Palin.

I will not post the original story or its content here, because this is a family-friendly site, and because I am unwilling to participate in furthering that garbage, but I assume you are able to do your own research.  A good place to start would be with Dan Riehl’s coverage of the “reporting” on Carlson’s website.  Suffice it to say that like Dan Riehl, I condemn unreservedly those who decide to run this venom even under the guise of reporting it.  One must question the motives in propagating such trash, and reading Dan Riehl’s coverage, I get the sense that he was intent on posing precisely that question.

Here’s how it frequently works: First,  you wait for the predictable parade of trash-mouths who will say anything for a moment’s media attention, and then you report on the story generated by others as if you’re merely doing your job.  It’s not real journalism.  It’s not real reporting.  It relies on the sketchy, sloppy, salacious  journalism of the original story.  Let’s imagine the purely hypothetical situation in which somebody who is otherwise a media has-been shows up to tell the muck-raking press that Tucker Carlson has done something horrible.  Then imagine other web-sites picking up the story and reporting it as news simply because they dislike Carlson.  This permits the purveyor of the “news” to pretend that there’s no offense in the reporting of what was said, but that the offense lies entirely with s/he who originally said it.  When an alleged journalist acquires a reputation for doing such things, we are right to ignore them.  It’s just a stealthy form of making an attack with which the journalists don’t wish to be directly involved or in any way connected, while nevertheless propagating it to an audience.

A true brouhaha ensued as Riehl reports that somebody claiming to be Tucker Carlson called him to threaten in vague terms, but I’m sure Riehl had a good time giving that caller his due, whoever it was.  While there’s no confirmation of the caller’s identity, it’s not outside the realm of possibilities given what we’ve all witnessed before with a certain formerly bow-tie-clad journalist, who’s been caught looking badly taking sexist shots at Sarah Palin before.  Back in March, 2011, he tweeted this:

“Palin’s popularity falling in Iowa, but maintains lead to become supreme commander of Milfistan”

Now this is purely sexist garbage, and while he eventually apologized, having tried to re-call his tweet by deletion, the piling-on of Erick Ericson at RedState certainly added nothing but further trash to an already ugly situation. Conservative bloggers replied in ferocious form, including Stacy Drake and Michelle Malkin, taking the GOP’s elite bloggers/columnists to task for their ridiculous remarks.

This seems to be a fair example of those Republican men  to whom Breitbart referred in The Undefeated as “eunuchs.”  Attack the girl with sexist terminology and gutter stories, either directly or indirectly through a surrogate “report,” and then make lame attempts at self-extrication from the inevitable blow-back.  In this latest episode, it was one of Carlson’s staff at his on-line publication who delivered the coverage of the original story, and it was clearly demeaning coverage of remarks made by the washed-up, ear-chomping boxer about Governor Palin in the crudest possible terms.  As Riehl reported, the original article appeared without a disclaimer, although one was subsequently added.  It’s hard to imagine that Carlson isn’t scrambling to avoid another black eye, as he did back in March, but as Stacy Drake reminded him then:

“You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, Tucker.”

Riehl’s site tells the tale as he has been providing updates all afternoon, Saturday.

Editors Note: I went back and forth on this story, whether to publish, but ultimately, a certain RINO needs exposure.

Update: Since publishing, I’ve learned that GretaWire is also covering the story.