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?

Media Helps HBO While Nicolle Wallace 'Squirms'

Sunday morning, Zeke Miller, a writer who works for Ben Smith at Buzzfeed, (re) tweeted the following:

Uncanny Valley! RT @TPM: McCain-Palin adviser: Game Change was "true enough to make me squirm" http://bit.ly/y5y2D7

The article he links to is from the left-wing site, TPM, or "Talking Points Memo." The actual headline for the piece is titled "Nicolle Wallace: Game Change Film 'True Enough To Make Me Squirm'." So, TPM tweets out a link excluding the name of the "McCain - Palin adviser" then on their site, don't explain to readers who Nicolle Wallace is, or what role she played as one of the primary sources that the 'Game Change' book authors and screenwriter used to create their fiction. Of course Nicolle Wallace is going to say that the movie 'Game Change' was "true enough." Many of the lies they tell are lies SHE told them!

Tony Lee caught what they were doing on Twitter and responded:

See what MSM does there? "McCain/Palin Adviser" instead of "Nicolle Wallace" and idiots who tweet w/o reading just RT headline. #WeSeeYall

Yes we do.

ABC News is even worse in their reporting about the Wallace appearance. They don't explain who Wallace is, that she has a history of having no credibility, or that she is one of the main people responsible for the lies told by HBO in an effort to cover her own tail.

Now, the reference to the words "Uncanny Valley" in Miller's tweet relates to a "movie review" he wrote last week for Ben Smith's Buzzfeed. Miller's piece is a good example of what the left's little helpers in the MSM have done to promote and lend credibility to HBO's smear-u-drama. He wrote:

The first thing you need to know about “Game Change” is that the acting is great — so great, in fact, that Americans who followed the 2008 presidential campaign may have trouble watching it.

Such wishful thinking from Zeke. The acting in 'Game Change' by Julianne Moore was atrocious. The accent is totally wrong, her mannerisms were off, she clenches her teeth during the entire movie, and the personalty of the character she's trying to emulate isn't that of Governor Palin. If anyone thinks the character played by Julianne Moore bares any resemblance to the governor, they have no clue who she is, and obviously haven't spent any effort trying to learn.

Miller continues:

Though the acting is remarkably close to life, the plot is stylized. Game Change is an epic tragedy, with Schmidt as the classical hero.

And there's Schmidt's payoff for telling the screenwriter what he wanted to hear. The Steve Schmidt character (played by Woody Harrelson), is portrayed as a level-headed, dedicated, overall good guy who's only mistake was bringing Governor Palin into the campaign.

In 2008, Politico described Schmidt as a "bald and barrel-chested operative known for his aggressive brand of political combat." During the same year, the New York Times wrote an article about Schmidt which described him as having a "street-brawling style of politics." They wrote:

Mr. Schmidt, a thick tower of man with a shaved head who can go from jovial to belligerent in an instant.

Michael Scherer referred to Schmidt as the "Lord of Outrage." And Meg Stapleton, who also worked on the 2008 campaign trail with Governor Pain, described Steve Schmidt as "abusive," "abrasive," and stated that he is "nothing short of a world class bully.” Hardly the mild-mannered, grapefruit-eating "hero" that HBO attempts to depict in their movie.

While Miller won't go as far as HBO is laying all of the blame on Governor Palin for the 2008 loss, he ends his "review" by writing:

The worst thing about this film may be being forced to come to grips with the fact that it isn’t exactly fiction.

No, the worst thing about this movie is that it is fiction being sold as truth to the American public by HBO, and the MSM. It's classic propaganda.

Zeke Miller is not alone. He's one of many in the media who have been trying to aid HBO in selling this garbage as "reality" to the public. The press is doing back-flips to get you to believe that HBO has credibility and that this movie is accurate. They don't dare tell their readers and viewers anything about the source of HBO's information. They repeat the line put out by the entertainment company that 'Game Change' portrays Palin in a "sympathetic" light, and that the film is "balanced" because Danny Strong lifted one line out of 'Going Rogue.' It's nonsense. The media is carrying water for their fellow-travelers in the entertainment industry. They don't care about the truth. They want people to believe that the person in that movie is the real Governor Palin. They need her to be some sort of monster, not who she really is because her success and her true character prove their entire world-view, wrong.

Karl Rove's Endorsement “Not Worth Snot”

Karl Rove, otherwise known as "Turd Blossom," was overheard on a conference call today equating Governor Palin's "endorsement" of Newt Gingrich to nasal mucus. In a piece titled "Rove: Palin Endorsement “Not Worth Snot” For Gingrich," Zeke Miller wrote:

Karl Rove mockingly dismissed the value of Sarah and Todd Palin's endorsements on a private conference call today, noting that their backing of Newt Gingrich in Alaska "demonstrated that endorsements don’t mean snot."

Is it possible that the overrated "architect" meant to say that no endorsement is "worth snot?" Perhaps, but why use the Palins as an example? If he didn't have a history of taking cheap-shots at Governor Palin, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But he does, so I won't.

Governor Palin NEVER gave a full GOP primary endorsement to Newt Gingrich. Her husband did, but she did not. She never helped Gingrich campaign, she never attended rallies, nor did she do any fundraising or record any robocalls. She only released the name of who she was going to vote for, AFTER she had already voted for him. Also, that was after most Alaskans had already voted, so what kind of effect could she have truly had?

Alaska also has a 'closed primary' for Republicans, who only make up roughly 26.8% of an entire population, which isn't very large to begin with. Governor Palin made the statement a few hours before the polls closed. So, what percentage of the 26.8% of Alaskans waited until the evening to vote, and how many of them watched FOX before voting? My point here is that Governor Palin didn't "endorse" Gingrich, she openly voted for him and didn't do so until it would have virtually no effect on the outcome in her home state.

What is sort of funny about all of this is that back in 2010, Governor Palin endorsed (and campaigned for) Rick Perry in Rove's home state of Texas. At that time, Rove endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison. We all know how that turned out. Apparently, it's Karl Rove's endorsement that isn't worth snot.

The Reccurring Omission of 'Game Change' Defenders

I have been witnessing a trend with those in the media who are defending HBO's movie, 'Game Change.' They keep repeating the same line about Governor Palin's aides, the ones who stood up for her last week to correct the record, not seeing the film yet. Therefore insisting that these people simply cannot speak on the matter. Never mind the fact that anybody can see from the trailers what this movie is trying to imply, it's funny that these film critics would use this line to defend the movie. Especially when you consider that HBO spoon-fed it to them in a letter that accompanied their copies of the film to screen. Via Politico:

In a letter to news editors that accompanied “Game Change” screeners, HBO’s Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, Quentin Schaffer, writes:

“There has been some noise about the film … Much of it has come from several Palin aides trying to discredit it even though they haven’t yet seen it.

As Adrienne noted in this fine take-down of Rachel Weiner, "The Fix" writer used the line, and so did David Zurwik from the Baltimore Sun. I'm sure there will be more, if there isn't already. HBO sent it to everyone and considering they're all on the same team, it stands to reason.

The same writers in the media who repeat HBO's talking point regarding Governor Palin's aides not seeing the entire movie, completely omit from their analysis the fact that some of these people asked HBO to screen the film but were denied. Why didn't HBO address this in their letter since their statement was meant to address the comments made by these aides?

John Nolte took HBO to task again, for their latest attempt to save face. He writes:

Before we get to HBO’s latest lame defense, here’s what the network (and Politico) won’t tell you…

Below are the names of eight people who have gone on the record to declare the book “Game Change” a falsehood, and what they’ve seen of the film (HBO refuses to screen it for them — but never mentions that in the statement) is just as false:

1. Governor Palin, who detailed life on the campaign trail in her autobiography “Going Rogue.” (In an obvious attempt at a publicity stunt, HBO did offer to screen the film for the Governor but, for some creepy reason, only at her home.)

2. Meg Stapleton, the Governor’s former spokeswoman.

3. Jason Recher, who handled vice presidential road operations for the McCain-Palin campaign and was with the governor during nearly every waking moment of the campaign.

4. Tim Crawford, Treasurer of Governor Palin’s PAC.

5. Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser who advised Palin during the ‘08 campaign and who vigorously disputes the book and film’s portrayal of her as anything other than engaged and informed on foreign policy matters.

6. Thomas Van Flein, the Governor’s former lawyer, who was in almost daily contact with Palin during the ‘08 campaign.

7 and 8. Aides Doug McMarlin and Andy Davis.

That’s EIGHT people declaring on the record that it’s all a load of bull.

Here’s all HBO has:

1. Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign who only now has come out as one of the book’s “background sources.” This was the genius who suggested McCain suspend his campaign during the financial crisis which, as we all know, is one of the main reasons for the loss. Furthermore, even before the campaign ended, both Schmidt and Nicholle Wallace were openly suspected of leaking lies meant to embarrass the Governor and blame her for their mistakes. Today, both are considered pretty toxic in party circles.

2.Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s, the authors of “Game Change” who never spent a moment with Palin during the campaign.

3. An untold number of background sources (Schmidt? Wallace?). The book is about 450 pages long and somewhere around 10 percent of it is about Sarah Palin, and yet….

There is not a single on-the-record source with respect to anything written about her. Not one.

—–

Both HBO and the authors had the choice of choosing between telling the story told by those willing to stake their reputations and word on the record, or those who chose to throw rocks while cowering behind a cloak of anonymity. And we all know which way they chose to go.

So here’s the latest from HBO’s Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, Quentin Schaffer:

“There has been some noise about the film … Much of it has come from several Palin aides trying to discredit it even though they haven’t yet seen it. HBO has a long track record of producing fact-based dramas, going to great lengths to get the story right. I want you to know about the efforts taken on this film.

That’s because HBO is afraid to let them see it. What the Palin aides are disputing is both the book and what they have seen of the film in the form of the trailer and other snippets that have been released.

If the 90 seconds or so that these aides have seen are filled with falsehoods, what will the entire film look like?

If the book upon which the film is based is all falsehoods, what will the film look like?

“It is based on the acclaimed book by well-respected veteran political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, both of whom served as consultants, checking every draft of the script to ensure its historical accuracy and thoroughness. When their book came out in 2010, it went unchallenged and unrefuted by the Palin camp. The script for Game Change was written by Danny Strong who also wrote the HBO Film Recount which was praised by both sides for its accurate portraits.

First off Halperin and Heilemann weren’t with Governor Palin during a single moment of the campaign and they are CHOOSING to rely on sources who refuse to go on the record as opposed to those willing to go on the record.

What does that tell you?

Secondly, to say that the book went unchallenged is provably false. Governor Palin

“In the process of writing Game Change, Strong spoke to 25 people intimately involved in the campaign, including the most senior advisors. He also reached out to Governor Palin and Senator McCain who declined to talk to him. They were also offered a chance to see the finished film but again declined. Secondary sources included Palin’s own memoir ‘Going Rogue,’ a beat-by-beat account of how she felt throughout the race, as well as other books on the campaign and many newspaper and magazine articles.

Who are these 25 people? Are they willing to go on the record? Because the eight people who are on the record have only seen about 90 seconds of the film and that was enough for them to cry foul.

More and more it is becoming glaringly obvious that what HBO and the book’s authors did was to CHOOSE who they were going to listen to based on what they wanted to hear.

In another eye-opening piece, Big Hollywood writer Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, does some more digging into the political donations of HBO management. He turns up some pretty predictable information. You can check it out here.

This whole thing boils down to credibility. The people who spoke in defense of Governor Palin last week, consisted of both current and former aides. Objectively speaking, it's safe to say that her former aides had nothing to gain or lose by speaking in her defense. They spoke for the sake of the truth and if you read Meg Stapleton's words, with much conviction. These are people who dealt with Governor Palin for long stretches of time, on a close, personal basis. They have credibility. The two jokers on this video, don't. Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace said one thing to cameras and something different to leftist authors behind the scenes, once they knew they weren't going to win. They certainly had something to gain by trashing Governor Palin. That being, her as their scapegoat for a failed campaign.

Steve Schmidt Admits Role in HBO Smear-U-Drama

Last December I wrote about a piece titled Behind the Smears of HBO’s “Game Change.” While writing about the authors of the book that the fictional HBO smear-u-drama is based on, I noted:

They claim to have interviewed over 300 people during their research, but not one of those people are named. Heilemann and Halperin do however, name the people who where present during each instance during the ’08 campaign that they claim happened. I found it interesting that within the Palin chapters of the book, Nicolle Wallace, her husband Mark Wallace, Steve Schmidt, and or the mysterious “famous GOP strategist” are always present.

After reading the book, it was pretty obvious to me that the unnamed sources for the book were primarily Steve Schmidt, Nicolle, and Mark Wallace. That was verified in Saturday's edition of the Los Angeles Times when Schmidt and Wallace finally signed their names to this deal. Entertainment writer James Rainey notes:

Schmidt and a chief Palin '08 aide, Nicolle Wallace, said they found it highly credible. Wallace said the film "captured the spirit and emotion of the campaign."

Of course they did! They sold their souls and their careers to the enemy in an effort to save their sorry reputations. I am happy to see that none of the current GOP presidential candidates were dumb enough to hire any of these losers.

And now here's proof that Schmidt sold his garbage to two left-leaning book authors, in a publication that essentially glorifies Barack Obama, right after he failed in his job (emphasis):

Schmidt and most of the other top operatives from the McCain campaign gave extended interviews to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the book authors. Many of the same sources also spoke to Danny Strong, writer of the film, and to director Jay Roach, who also teamed on the Emmy-winning docudrama "Recount," about the razor's edge 2000 election finish. Chris Edwards, one of Palin's 2008 staffers, served as a technical advisor to the filmmakers.

I don't know who "most of the other top operatives" are supposed to be, but I assume he's talking about Nicolle and Mark Wallace, as well as Chris Edwards mentioned above. These former "consultants," (who destroyed their own careers by running a horrible campaign in 2008, losing the election to a junior Senator from Illinois) sold their version of events to writers with an agenda. They were trying to restore their own reputations by passing the blame on to Governor Palin, making up details and accounts to make her look culpable. But any honest observer could clearly see that Governor Palin was not the problem in that campaign. Under Schmidt's "expertise" the McCain campaign fumbled the economic meltdown and were absolute cowards when dealing with Obama's history and associations. And I don't need to falsify accounts of Steve Schmidt having a his own mental meltdown to prove that he was incompetent. The facts speak for themselves.

Is there any question why Governor Palin always makes it a point to encourage the current crop of GOP presidential contenders to be wary of campaign consultants?

'The Blaze' Writer Trashes Governor Palin for Writing Trig Article

Monday, a writer for Glenn Beck's website The Blaze, took upon himself to trash Governor Palin for writing that beautiful article that was published over the weekend on the Daily Beast. Quite frankly, Beck's writer shocked me with his tone and lack of reason for posting the piece. So why did The Blaze host this nauseating garbage? Why did Beck's editors permit someone (a small man who writes just like a "progressive™" btw) to attack Governor Palin in this fashion, on this website?

The writer, who goes by the name "Eddie Scarry" wrote:

What’s the first thing that came to mind when you heard that Rick Santorum‘s special needs child was in the hospital with pneumonia late last month? I bet all of Mitt Romney‘s money it wasn’t Sarah Palin unless you are Sarah Palin.

He clearly tries to suggest that Governor Palin used the Santorums troubles to bring attention to herself. A disgraceful suggestion, especially since the Daily Beast reached out to Governor Palin to write the article, not the other way around. From HuffPo (emphasis):

But a Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum's daughter, Bella, had been hospitalized and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.

"We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum's decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter," the spokesperson emailed.

Scarry continued to embarrass himself by writing:

Of the roughly 900-word article, 123 of them relate to Santorum and his daughter Bella who was born with Trisomy 18, a disability similar to Down syndrome.

It’s all downhill from there. For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest. I didn’t bother searching for “I” and “I’ve.”

That would be because the Daily Beast asked her to "share her personal story," Mr. Scarry! And just how is it "downhill from there?" Did he even read her article? If so, does he possess a heart? Only an empty person could read the governor's words regarding her son and think they were a downhill track to anywhere. It was a touching piece, written from the heart by a mother who loves her son. Something that anyone with a special needs child could truly appreciate.

Which leads me back to Glenn Beck, who also has a child with special needs... He, of all people, should be able to empathize with what Governor Palin wrote in her article. Yet, his website allows this very small human to trash and demean the message she was sending. It's truly sad, but what else should we expect from website run by a man who once made his money from the Tea Party, and now suggests they're racists just like the progressives™ do?

Update: John Nolte weighs in over at Big Journalism:

What the Blaze is intentionally doing here, is misleading its readers into believing Governor Palin was supposed to write a piece about the Santorum family and their daughter Bella. Moreover, The Blaze obviously wants their readers to believe that Palin selfishly exploited what happened to the Santorums so that she could write something all about herself.

That’s the only explanation for why the Blaze counts the number of times “Rick” and “Santorum” are used, or why there’s a count of how many words are dedicated to the Santorums. Why would those word counts matter otherwise?

The lie the Blaze tells here, is one of omission. But it’s a lie nonetheless, because the truth happens to be the COMPLETE opposite. Which leads me to a bigger question…

What are we to make of the fall of Glenn Beck when we’re forced to use the Huffington Post to correct his site’s misinformation … about Sarah Palin?

Yes, what just flew past your window was a pig, because today ”the truth has no agenda” at the Huffington Post:

Nolte also mentions the little scuffle I got into with Eddie Scarry yesterday on Twitter, wherein he called me a "whore." I initially left this part out of my piece because I didn't want to distract readers from my purpose for writing it. That, and I really don't care what this person calls me. I've been called many names in the past for supporting Governor Palin, all by folks who don't know a thing about me. And I'll admit that I'm not totally innocent in this either. I did refer to Mr. Scarry as a "jackass." Where I come from, that's what you call someone for doing something stupid but it's not an indictment on their character. It turns out that Mr. Scarry is worse than a "jackass" but I'll refrain from anymore name-calling.

The important thing to remember is that as long as Mr. Scarry posts on The Blaze, Glenn Beck is essentially endorsing his words. All of them. The most troubling of course, were those words used to trash Governor Palin for doing what was asked of her.

Peter Schweizer Reacts to the STOCK Act Passing in the Senate

Last Thursday, the US Senate passed the STOCK Act, legislation that would ban members of congress from insider trading. From CBS News:

Members of Congress are already subject to insider trading laws. But it is currently within the law for a lawmaker to buy a company's stock after learning, for example, that an upcoming bill will grant that company a large government contract.

The ultimate fate of the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which comes in the wake of a "60 Minutes" story on potential congressional insider trading, remains unclear - though its prospects are relatively good. Passage in the Senate was complicated by a flurry of amendments added to the legislation, including a proposal that senators be prevented from owning individual stocks unless they are in a blind trust, and another that senators who become lobbyists lose their pensions. Some lawmakers expressed skittishness at the efforts to broaden the scope of the legislation...

One criticism of the original legislation - raised by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - was that the original bill did not also focus on the executive branch. That issue seems to have been addressed: An amendment to extend the new rules to cover the executive branch passed on Thursday 58-41.

In a statement following the vote, Cantor said he was "pleased" with the Senate action -- but added that that the version of the bill passed Thursday still needed to be reviewed. The Virgina Republican said the House would take up the legislation next week; if the House passes an amended version of the bill, it will have to go back to the Senate for another vote.

C4P readers are familiar with Peter Schweizer's work, shining a spotlight on members of Congress for abusing their positions. In a piece published at The Daily Beast on Friday, Schweizer reacts to the STOCK Act bill's passage in the Senate:

The STOCK Act to ban insider trading by members of Congress has sailed through the Senate, 96-3, and many members of the U.S. Senate were no doubt kicking and screaming as they voted for it. Heck, some of the most prominent cosponsors were people that I identified in my book, Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison, as having stock-trading activities that correlated nicely with their legislative work.

But let’s not let any of that sour the moment. The U.S. Senate has finally passed an important piece of legislation that reminds us all that members of Congress should abide by the same rules the rest of us do, including those involving insider trading.

I’ve made a lot of enemies in Washington over the past three months. I’ve been called names (by members of both political parties) and threatened with litigation. (My response was “go right ahead.”) But let’s take a moment to talk positively about some of those who made a difference in making this happen. After all, the American West was won by wagon train, and it took a team of dedicated and courageous people to bring us to this point.

The media: There were three news outlets that were determined to get to the bottom of this story regardless of who they ticked off: one on TV, another in print, and a third online. 60 Minutes producers Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder, as well as correspondent Steve Kroft, got a lot of heat when they were working on this story. But despite distorted attacks by very powerful people in Washington, who took an “attack the messenger approach,” they didn’t blink. Bravo. Newsweek’s Peter Boyer (The Daily Beast is the online home of Newsweek magazine) was equally committed to getting to the truth and fought for this story to get out and took a lot of ground fire for it. If these individuals don’t win journalism awards for their work, there is no justice. Online, Andrew Breitbart (with whom I work), was all over this story from the beginning and was willing to go wherever it led, which meant going after both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. He was essentially alone on this story. The actions of all of these individuals stand in stark contrast to many members of the Washington media who simply ignored the story or actually attacked it in an effort to curry favor with the Washington establishment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lapdogs and too few watchdogs.

The politicians: The STOCK Act was introduced several years ago, but could never garner more than nine co-sponsors. Congressmen Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tim Walz (D-MN) , and Brian Baird (a Democrat who represented Washington state, but who has since left) were doing the early lifting on this bill. They were against congressional insider trading before it was cool. They should be applauded. Once the battle was on, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) introduced a similar bill and became one of the most fierce in making sure the issue would not go away. Another warrior is Rep. Sean Duffy, a freshman from Wisconsin who recognizes that the STOCK Act is not nearly strong enough by itself and has proposed the RESTRICT Act, which must be passed next.

The American public: In all the people I spoke to about this problem, not one thought that members of Congress should be allowed to do this. And there were plenty of people who went further than simply being angry: they took action. In Birmingham, Ala., more than 100 Tea Party protesters showed up at Rep. Spencer Bachus’s office to protest his stock-options trading. Within two hours of doing so, Bachus declared his desire to hold hearings on the matter. He is now facing a serious primary challenger.

The passage of the STOCK Act in the Senate is just the first battlefield victory in this war for reform. The STOCK Act makes congressional insider-trading illegal. But let’s be clear: it alone doesn’t go nearly far enough to deal with the problems of cronyism and corruption that we face. It deals only with publicly traded stock, not equity buys in private companies. It does nothing to close the sweetheart deals involving IPO shares that can make politicians more money in one day than a bribe ever could. And insider-trading cases are very hard to win. On top of that, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department are unlikely to go after a powerful politician. Just look at what happened to the FBI when they were investigating Rep. William Jefferson, who famously took bribes and put the money in his freezer. There were threats to cut the FBI budget!

Schweizer then mentions importance of passing Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act and the need to apply these same ethical standards to the executive branch.

You can read the entire article here.