Cal Thomas Buys Into, Repeats HBO's 'Game Change' Lies

On Fox News Watch last Saturday, Cal Thomas made it painfully obvious to those of who have, that he didn't research HBO's 'Game Change' very well before discussing it on the show. He said that he watched the movie, and he obviously tuned in to MSNBC to get their take, but it's clear that he really didn't comprehend what that movie was all about, or the motives behind those who made it.

Jon Scott: As the left is touting this supposed "war on women," what about the war on Sarah Palin? The 'Game Change' movie got big numbers. She was not exactly portrayed in a flattering light, and the other half of the book essentially gets left out.

Cal Thomas: Well, I saw the movie and I'm probably going to surprise some people. I thought it was very sell done. I thought she came off as a sympathetic figure. She was put into a situation, she was not prepared for. She was not able to be a quick study on a lot of the issues. Forced out in front of interviewers like Katie Couric, and she wasn't ready for the job. I was very sympathetic. She went on that, she got picked less than a year after having a baby. And all of these pressures on her, I thought it was extremely well done.

Alan Colmes: Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt both said it was realistic.

Cal Thomas: Yeah.

The main problem is that Thomas accepted HBO's version of events. In fact, he repeats Mark Halperin, the author of the book that the movie was based, by saying it was "sympathetic" to Governor Palin. No, it was not.

The entire movie is based on distortions and lies. The writers at Big Hollywood (including myself) have documented these lies, and made a case against the claims of the filmmakers using facts, eye-witness accounts, and press reports from the 2008 election. To repeat, Thomas said:

"I thought she came off as a sympathetic figure. She was put into a situation, she was not prepared for. She was not able to be a quick study on a lot of the issues. Forced out in front of interviewers like Katie Couric, and she wasn't ready for the job."

Unfortunately for Fox News Watch viewers, he just repeated a fabricated version of events. From the "Top 10 Lies of HBO's 'Game Change'" piece I wrote for Big Hollywood (emphasis):

"Game Change" also depicts Palin as highly forgetful. Around the 70 minute mark, Mark Wallace tells Steve Schmidt that Palin couldn't remember "any" of the information he used to prep her for the debate. As it turns out, another Democrat didn't get the memo. In 2008, former editor in chief of Ms. magazine, Elaine Lafferty wrote:

I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts.

Lafferty also said Palin was "smart" and "more than a quick study." She, however, was not interviewed by "Game Change" screenwriter Danny Strong for the film.

Also:

A.B. Culvahouse has also stated on record that the Katie Couric interview left viewers with the "wrong impression" about Palin's knowledge of the Supreme Court. He said:

She clearly did ... My law firm represents Exxon in the Valdez matters,'' he noted. "Until she became governor, Gov. Palin was a plaintiff in that case...

Regarding foreign policy, the movie depicts the Director of Foreign Policy and National Security for the McCain campaign, Randy Scheunemann, as teaching Palin as if she were a child learning about geography for the first time. The movie implies that using maps while discussing foreign policy and national security with a political leader was necessary because she was so dumb. However, during a press conference last week, Scheunemann said:

I always use maps as a briefer and did so even with McCain.

Around the 46 minute mark, the filmmakers portray Palin as unfamiliar with basic knowledge pertaining to World War I and World War II. During that same press conference, Scheunemann said:

The idea that at any point that Gov. Palin expressed any uncertainty as to who were the various sides in World War I or World War II, or any other war, is absolutely untrue. She was incredibly intelligent. She asked very informed questions. She was very interested and she wanted to understand John McCain’s view of foreign policy because she wanted to be the best possible vice presidential nominee.

Scheunemann went on to explain that his discussion with Gov. Palin about these historic topics was in the context of the historical roots of John McCain's foreign policy world views, not a history lesson.

Thomas then went on to say:

"She went on that, she got picked less than a year after having a baby. And all of these pressures on her, I thought it was extremely well done."

Am I to take this to mean that Thomas bought into the notion that Governor Palin really did have a mental breakdown? He associates her pregnancy and the "pressures on her" saying it made him sympathetic towards her. Clearly, Mr. Thomas didn't know that this part of the movie has been proven false, given the time-stamp in the movie.

From the "'Game Change': Palin Breakdown Meme Crushed by Facts" piece I wrote for Big Hollywood:

At the 68 minute mark in the movie, the filmmakers show Palin (Julianne Moore) at a table with campaign staff going over material to prep for her debate against Joe Biden. The movie depicts Palin as being detached and unresponsive. She mutters to herself about missing her baby.

They want you to believe that she had a complete mental meltdown. Just like most of the movie, this simply isn't true. As a matter of fact, it's impossible. Keep in mind that at the beginning of that scene, the filmmakers stamp the bottom left-hand corner of the screen with the location and date they claim the events took place. It says "Philadelphia September 27."

[...]

According to the makers of "Game Change," Palin spent Sept. 27, 2008 losing her mind while prepping for the upcoming debate with campaign staff, and then in a "catatonic stupor" in her hotel room later that evening. But according to Peter Hamby, the real Palin was actually taking questions in a Philadelphia restaurant:

Sarah Palin partook in an established political ritual on Saturday night when she headed to Tony Luke's in south Philadelphia to order a pair of cheesesteaks with whiz and onions.

But as the kitchen sizzled and orders were barked out, Palin found herself talking politics, calling McCain's debate performance "awesome" and taking questions from a voter about the hunt for terrorists in Pakistan.

[...]

Also, the night before the phony mental breakdown, the real Palin attended a Presidential debate watching party at an Irish Pub:

Fresh off an afternoon jog along the Schuylkill River, Sarah Palin stopped by a debate watching party at The Irish Pub on Walnut Street in downtown Philadelphia. It was an invite-only event that pulled in about 450 McCain supporters who had been drinking and eating for several hours before the candidate arrived (around 7:20PM EST). It was Palin's first campaign stop in Philadelphia this cycle.

How do the makers of "Game Change" explain the fact that Palin was (according to their sources) losing her mental grasp, yet at the same time, attending campaign events and talking to the press? People who are truly mentally ill and "constantly falling into catatonic stupors" cannot turn off their symptoms to take questions from CNN...

The worst part of Mr. Thomas' analysis however, is that he agrees with Alan Colmes when he claims that the movie is credible because Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt said so. Could it be that Cal Thomas doesn't know that Steve Schmidt was the main source used by both the book's authors and the filmmakers, to gain their dirt on Governor Palin? Is it possible that Mr. Thomas overlooked the glowing portrayal of Schmidt in the movie, and completely white-washes his role in the failure of the McCain campaign? Did Cal Thomas not see the leaked memos from last week, proving that there was an effort by Steve Schmidt's cronies to save his reputation (even before the campaign was over,) by talking to members of the press "off the record," including one of the writers for the book?

For some reason, Cal Thomas bought into HBO's propaganda, and even the spin they delivered after they came under scrutiny. He neglected the fact that many of Governor Palin's current and former staff (as well as others around her at this time) have repeatedly said the movie is false. Thomas didn't take into consideration the motives behind the left-wing book authors, the left-wing filmmakers (in an election year, no less), or the two main axe-grinding sources of information that each used to produce their product.

I don't believe that Cal Thomas was being intentionally malicious while discussing this movie. I do however, believe that he is ill-informed and would certainly benefit from a better research staff. Or perhaps, getting his own hands dirty and researching it for himself. Is it too much to ask that Fox News Watch, watch the news (no matter where it is) instead of repeating lines of propaganda by people with known agendas?

WSJ: Eliminationist rhetoric against Sarah Palin: a production of the Missoula Children's Theater - Update

Disgusting.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal reports:

For some perspective on the recent "debate" over "civility" and "eliminationist rhetoric," let's turn to Montana, home of the Missoula Children's Theater. A recent production there gets a bad review today in a letter to the editor of the Missoulian, the local daily:

Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:

First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.

The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.

We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.

As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.

Rory Page, Clinton

Well, perhaps Olds made a clerical error and one of Andrew Sullivan's works got into the Arthur Sullivan file.

In all seriousness, though, like much of what we have been writing about in the past few weeks, this incident is shocking but not surprising. For all the bogus accusations being thrown at Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, genuinely hateful political rhetoric is commonplace in the art world, even in art that is not overtly political.

You can read the piece in it's entirety here.

Art itself is not overtly political, but a great number of artists are. Being an artist myself, having attended an art college, I am familiar with the prevailing mindset of many in the trade. A left-leaning, sometimes perverse, and poorly informed demographic, if there ever there was one.

This little spectacle at the Missoula Children's Theater no less, is indicative of a bigger issue. The recent calls for "civility" from the left are, as most of us have figured out, a complete farce. For years, the left have used many avenues of communication such as art and literature to dehumanize and vilify their political opposites. Their tone can be vicious and at times, violent.

Yesterday, Alan Colmes insinuated that it was a "crazy right-wing conspiracy" to suggest that the left's call for civility is nothing more than an attempt to silence their opposition. I think the actions of Curt Olds and his "liberal" audience prove the left's mindset, thereby highlighting the lack of sincerity when they speak about a "new tone" in our political dialog. Go ahead and count this as just another example of left-wing America's glaring hypocrisy.

Update: Warner Todd Huston from Rightpundits is reporting that Michael McGill, the Director of the Missoula Community Theater has "apologized." The apology reads:

I am sorry that the satirical reference to Sarah Palin has offended some of our patrons. Gilbert & Sullivan were well-known as satirists, addressing the social and cultural issues of their day—aristocracy, government, etc…. Some of the lyrics performed in The Mikado around the country today reflect the issues and topics of our time. We know that “MCT” means many things to many people—and we are blessed with passionate, loyal audiences, here in Missoula and around the world. In this instance, however, we are talking about an MCT Community Theatre production (not to be confused with a Missoula Children’s Theatre production). Although MCT Community Theatre did not pen the lyrics that were found to be offensive, we have taken the action of removing them from this production. It is my hope that the audiences will appreciate the hard work, artistry and beauty within this MCT Community Theatre production of The Mikado.

Well, he clarified that the play was not a children's production, which is good I guess. However, he did not apologize for what was said or the sentiment expressed, he merely apologized that people were offended. Which is really no apology at all.

(H/T: indemind)

Alan Colmes Needs Some "Divine Intervention" Himself

Alan Colmes (yes he's still around) decided that he found himself a 'gotcha' moment after Governor Palin sent the following message on Twitter Sunday:

He posted the following on his blog, "Liberaland" titled "Sarah Palin’s Gulf Solution: “Divine Intervention”:

When President Obama invoked God during his prime time speech, he was criticized for going in that direction. But will the critics be as ardent in response to Sarah Palin’s statement that what is needed is “divine intervention”? Bill O’Reilly pointedly asked Palin, “What would you do?” At the time there was no answer, but now we know.

[He posted screen-capture of the governor's tweet here]

And Louisiana state senators have designated Sunday a day of prayer, believing that may be the only way to solve the crisis.

The governor's tweet was in reference to Louisiana state senators call for a day of prayer. She did not offer this up as her "solution" to the current problem at hand. As a Christian, she understands that prayer plays an instrumental role but is not the end of the road when dealing with a crisis. You need to take charge, set your priorities, and manage the proper people to get solutions. While your at it, it's a good idea to ask for God's help and guidance. This "solution" must be far more complicated than Alan Colmes mind can comprehend.

Colmes says that the president was criticized "for going in that direction," during the horrendous speech he gave last week from the Oval Office. But the link he provides to back up that statement says the president was criticized from "both right and left" and was done so for different reasons.

The first critic in that article is Rachel Maddow, who "questioned whether "prayer" was really the appropriate request given the enormous complexity and magnitude of the problem." Not to read too much into what Maddow was saying (impossible, as I am her direct opposite) but I think she was just looking for more, 'taking charge, setting priorities, and managing the proper people' to deal with this situation. Prayer obviously not being enough action from the Commander in Chief.

The second critic the article lists is Newt Gingrich, who simply stated, "I hope he means it." If he did mean it, it wouldn't hurt the situation, that's for sure.

It's actually the one part of his speech that didn't make me cringe. I see nothing wrong with the President of the United States of America asking for God's help in a time of need. There is nothing wrong with that, what so ever. So, the insinuation Colmes piece is trying to convey to his left-wing audience, that won't click on that link to read more, is that someone on the right attacked Obama for invoking God, so they should feel free to attack Palin for doing the same.. It's nonsense, and should be an argument below a professional commentator like Colmes, but he does work on the left where the standards are much lower.

He also adds to this post, "Bill O’Reilly pointedly asked Palin, “What would you do?” At the time there was no answer, but now we know." I assume he thought that was a fun, snarky way to tie the piece together. However, it's not true at all.

O'Reilly asked what her main point would be if she were the one giving the speech. He said, "What would you do? Tell the nation tonight, what you would have said, your main point in that speech. Go."

She replied, "Stopping the gusher. That's the number one priority of the nation." She then goes on to say that Obama's priorities have been off since the beginning of this disaster. How terrible it is that his priorities are still so messed up that he spent that speech talking about getting a Cap-n-Tax bill passed.

One thing is clear, is that had it been President Palin in the Oval Office the day this all began, the administration's priorities would have been focused in the right direction from the jump. Allowing for the ability to get the right people put in the right places to ensure all avenues are explored and that the number one job, the "number one priority" for this nation IS "stopping the gusher," not paying off cronies with phony carbon credit rackets. Besides, Governor Palin has offered a lot of advice to the current president in dealing with this crisis. She's given him names of experts, suggested that he should wave the Jones Act, and even offered to give him advice over the telephone. None of that advice has been taken, and the oil continues to flow into the Gulf.