Cain aide wrongly insists they’ve ‘confirmed’ accuser’s son works for POLITICO

Herman Cain campaign manager Mark Block, in an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News just now, insisted that a relative of the second woman to publicly accuse the candidate of sexual harassment in the 1990s works at POLITICO.

“Her son works at POLITICO,” Block said of Karen Kraushaar, whose name POLITICO printed earlier today after other media outlets made her identity public.

“I’ve been hearing that all day – you’ve confirmed that now?” Hannity asked.

“We’ve confirmed that he does indeed work at POLITICO and that’s his mother, yes,” said Block.

Block appeared to be referring to former POLITICO reporter Josh Kraushaar, who left for another outlet, National Journal, in 2010.

Josh Kraushaar tweeted earlier in the day, apparently after getting questions, that he’s in fact not related to Karen Kraushaar, and simply has the same last name.

via Cain aide wrongly insists they’ve ‘confirmed’ accuser’s son works for POLITICO – Maggie Haberman –

So…the Cain campaign has “confirmed” to Sean Hannity that something that is totally not true is absolutely true.  Hannity, et al, will now continue to spread that lie as is it weren’t a lie, and call anyone who notices this a liar.

And so it goes…it’s only going to stop when people stop voting for these idiots, and watching the shows that promote them.

UPDATE: Like most of what Cain does…this gets funnier…

Here’s the tweet from they guy they “confirmed” both worked for and was brought into this world by, the wrong people.

Here’s the straight talkin’ explanation…

Now, in an exchange with the Daily Caller, the Cain campaign is acknowledging the error — and chalking it up to some sort of information that they had at the time.

“Based upon information available at the time of Mr. Block’s Tuesday night interview on Fox News, the campaign was led to believe that Mr. Josh Kraushaar, currently with the National Journal and a former employee of Politico, was the son of Karen Kraushaar,” campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon said. “We have since learned that is not the case.”

[full story]

FBI details surge in death threats against lawmakers;_ylt=Aoof3wZr80p4TN8LPdxvX7PCw5R4;_ylu=X3oDMTBvajZzaTFyBHBvcwMxNQRzZWMDdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA–

In February 2009, a man left voice mail messages for Stabenow in several of her Michigan offices.

“We’re gonna [expletive] get you,” he said in one message. “We’re gonna get you with a lot of [expletive] bolt action. Like we did RFK; like we did MLK. We know who you are. We’ll get you.”

FBI agents tracked the calls to a 54-year-old Texas man who lived alone — and who at one time had owned a 20-gun arsenal of handguns, shotguns and rifles. According to the documents, he told officers that he was “really, really drunk” when he made the calls. He said he was just “venting” — taking out his frustrations after hearing a discussion of the Fairness Doctrine and becoming concerned that the government would attempt to abolish the radio shows of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

I call this the “Tea Party” effect. Way to make a mark on the country, folks.

UPDATE:  What’s going to be really interesting (i.e. scary) is when these nuts absolutely fail to resonate with voters at large in November.  There will be much gnashing of teeth and firing up the hoverrounds when it becomes apparent most of the sound and fury of the TP is created by the echo chamber of a small group of radicals (led by Sean, Rush, and Beck) all loudly agreeing with one another.

John Ziegler Interview with Nate Silver

This is a follow-up to the post here were I tear apart this guy’s allegedly “scientific” data.  This is the person behind the website “HowObamaGotElected” and I think he’s making a movie about how we elected a Muslim terrorist or something.

Anyway, Nate Silver, who had gained a great deal of polling credibility during the campaign at, got a call from the guy after Nate slammed his poll on the site.

This led to a transcript of the interview being posted here, and below I’ll pull some of the funnier exchanges.  Ziegler is a nut, but I am kinda unhappy with Nate for not busting Ziegler on his complete lack of mathematical ability (as I so hilariously noted here).

BTW, the interview also gets directly to the point I raised in my previous post…the video and movie that he’s making are at polar opposites to the poll he commissioned.

That would be because….

NS: In the Youtube video, how were the Obama supporters identified for the Youtube video?
JZ: I had nothing to do with it. I had a person who was working with me who happens to be a black female since you seem to think I’m a racist who was the one that chose all of the respondents based on conversations we’d had prior, people who were well-spoken, thought they were informed, willing to come on camera and [who] voted for Barack Obama.

NS: What was the location of the polling place where the interviews were conducted?
JZ: They were both in Los Angeles.

NS: Okay, that’s what I kind of guessed. How many Obama supporters did you speak with in total?
JZ: All twelve we spoke with are in the video.

NS: Was there any significance to the fact that in the YouTube video, seven of the twelve Obama supporters were black?
JZ: [Laughs]. The reason why we had more black supporters – that might surprise some of the people that we spoke to — if we go by your apparent ability to determine race — the first location happened to be in a black section of town and we were able to get our interviews faster there because of the way that was set up, because of the logistics.

Yup, the guy headed straight south central L.A. to find your typical American voter.   Super-scientific, he is.

NS: Do you think that certain types of voters are less well informed?
JZ: I think anyone that looks rationally at these poll results would have to conclude that Obama voters are incredibly poorly informed about major issues that occurred during the campaign — my guess is because McCain voters got their information from different types of media than Obama voters did.

NS: What types of media would you consider credible?
JZ: I think you need a variety of sources, but I do not accept the notion that if it’s not in the New York Times it’s not true and if it is in the New York Times it is. Just because Sean Hannity says something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

As someone who has looked rationally at these polls results, and saw that when an actual answer was given (Not Sure wasn’t a candidate in *this election*) the plurality of those polled were right every time, and that’s even given the biased questions.

The really sad part about it is that Ziegler thought these were “major issues”.  I’m sorry, but a slip of the tongue (’57 states’) is a not a major issue, unless you slip it somewhere very interesting.

It’s also evident now where he gets most of his news.  Hannity was kind enough to have him on the show, having seen a fellow traveler.  The formulation of Hannity’s defense that Ziegler uses, “He doesn’t lie ALL the time” should be telling to anyone who has tried to defend a friend the same way.

Ziegler started off the video by quizzing Southern Californians about members of the House of Representatives for other districts and other states, ranging as far away as Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has ten Reps.  Very few people know who represent themselves in Congress, much less which of the 535 members represent people in other states.  If you learned the name of a Representative in Congress every other day, you would never learn them all, as they get must get re-elected very two years (435 * 2 = 870, 365 * 2 =730).

Senators are a bit easier, but even those are tough to follow.

When asked himself about *Senators* in other states, Ziegler answers like a real man.

NS: Would you consider yourself well-informed
JZ: I’d consider myself extremely well-informed.

NS: Who are the two senators from South Dakota
JZ: Thune and, uh, Johnson.

NS: Very good. South Carolina?
JZ: Go fuck yourself. I’m done with this interview if you’re going to ask me stupid questions like that. Obviously I know who Lindsay Graham is.

NS: Well, since you’re running a website calling people misinformed, I’d like to see if — there are certain things you’ve said that I would consider misinformed.
JZ: Misinformed? You’re a piece of work! You are never going to have the guts to post a representative transcript on your website! I thought you actually ran a legitimate website!

NS: Thank you, have a good day.
JZ: Go fuck yourself.

And that, my friends, is the man (and I use the term loosely) who created “HowObamaGotElected.”

Jump on his bandwagon at your own risk.  He’s the one driving.

UPDATE: It should be noted that this whole kurfluffle started with Ziegler and Silver (representing the jewish divide in America) around Silver’s delcaration that this was a ‘push poll’.   Ziegler took offense, as he so easily does, and asked Nate for the interview.  Nate obliged.

There is a simple reason why Nate incorrectly called it a “push poll” and Ziegler is right that it isn’t one.  From the wiki….

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. 

 The reason why Nate called this a “push poll” was because the questions appeared to him to be “telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll.”   I agree with Nate that they appear this way.  Normally poll questions are supposed to be unbiased, and I don’t see how anyone could argue these are fair questions.  Heck, Ziegler admits himself that at least one is a trick question.  I think people realized this, and picked the trick question answer “None” more often than they would have normally.

You see, all us Humans have built-in bullshit detectors.  We got them from our ancestors who used them to survive and copulate furiously.  When we think/feel someone is lying to us, or trying to mislead us, we pull back.  You can see that in the numbers.

The reason this isn’t  a push poll are also evident in the definition. Mainly because a “push poll is a political campaign technique” and the campaign is over, because “large numbers of respondents” were not contacted (you want to reach 10s if not 100s of thousands of people with a push poll, it’s a form of advertising, not polling), and because a great deal of effort has gone into “collect[ing] and analyze response data.”

So the question of the push poll goes to Ziegler over Silver.  Congrats John, you won the battle and lost the war.

How very Pyrrhic of you.

UPDATE: Fixed the guy’s first name in title and URL.  Typos are easy.

[On] Palin Progaganda on Fox

Talk show host Sean Hannity and Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin came together for what Fox News Channel promoted as an exclusive interview.

But, in truth, what viewers saw was a carefully staged display of partisan political theater — from the executive-office backdrop to the non-stop stream of smiley-faced softball questions Hannity served up with great servility.

In TV terms, the imagery was impressive, with an American flag over her left shoulder, a richly appointed china cabinet off to the side and thick carpeting throughout. Every table had flowers in a fine vase. It was all supposed to remind viewers of the White House while sending the message: Look how comfortable and natural she looks here.

Typical of their staged conversation was the following exchange:

Hannity: “Senator Obama yesterday was attacking Senator McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Do you believe the fundamentals of the economy are strong?”

Palin: “It was an unfair attack on the verbiage… because he (McCain) means our work force, of course, and that is what’s strong… So, that was an unfair attack.”

[ed. yes…it’s unfair to attack people for what they say….wait, what? And also…as you seemed to have missed the question…this kind of stuff is considered “fundamentals of our economy“. Our “work force” is aging and uneducated. Luckily that’s only one piece of the puzzle.]

Z on TV: Hannity all smiles and servility in Palin interview – Sun critic David Zurawik writes about the business, culture and craziness of television –

They had a few of these questions on the Daily Show last night (e.x. “Two part question, why are your opponents so scummy and why are you so awesome and beloved?”)

Whenever I see Fox trip over completely into propaganda mode I kind of chuckle. I chuckle because I know throughout history that various governments have used powerful propaganda to get their people to move against their own interests and do horrid and evil things.

I chuckle because I always thought that if I was in one of those countries, I could point out the lies and show the proof and the people would rejoice, see the light, and “catapult the propaganda“.

I chuckle because I’m reminded of Zbig talking about how the Chinese Communists have studied, and copied, Fox for their national channel.

And I chuckle because I know how futile it is to talk to those who drink of the font of knowledge that is Propaganda (capitalized). They don’t see the world the same way because they have been taught it is different. They don’t have the skills to process information because it is always processed for them. They don’t have the desire to change a system that, the news says, is working great for them and has their best interest at heart.

They are so committed to their lifeblood of world knowledge, and watching it makes them feel so right about the world, as it constantly re-inforces their worldview., to challenge the whole of it would be unthinkable.

And now they have their hero. The ultimate Fox Girl (minus the blond hair).

No real knowledge of the world, but daaamn, she can read good and think a bit and look incredible on camera. That sense of humor and stell just flies right through the lens. It’s like she’s been trained to be in front of a camera. She so good at it, it’s almost like she learned about it in college. Maybe even six of ’em.

Being on camera is much more fun that learning about icky polices and “how government works” and boring stuff. It’s much more fun to go with the “people love me and I love them” mode of governing that worked so swimmingly in that movie I saw the other day.

So I chuckle.

It keeps me sane.

Also, and on a wider note, it’s hilarious (I’m getting more than a chuckle) watching McCain and Palin all of sudden try and look like Big Government Regulators that Interfere with THE HOLY MARKET and Are the Root Of All Evil (according to standard Republican dogma). What they are trying to avoid from becoming general public knowledge is that the guy who wrote the legistation that deregulated the banks was McCain’s former chief economic advisor.

That would have been some “change” sending Phil Gramm back to Washington to finish the job, wouldn’t it?

UPDATE: I was looking for a transcript of the interview and I found this transcript generator. It can be used to generate an interview for each loyal viewer. Awesome.

In case you missed Sean Hannity’s interview with Sarah Palin, you haven’t missed much. You can generate a close approximation of the transcript of the interview using this simple generator:

Step 1) Sean Hannity states typical right wing talking point (fill in yourself).

Step 2) Hannity says, “Don’t you agree Sarah.”

Step 3) Palin agrees, repeats same talking point

Step 4) Repeat Step 1

[full post]