The Trib Fails To Disclose. Again.

But this time in a news feature.

It's one thing for Scaife's braintrust to fail to disclose his financial support for the conservative think tanks it's using as source material on the editorial page (and that's bad enough) but for the news division to do so, well, it's almost as if these old blurbs from Brill's Content from 2001 are still true:

According to interviews with 21 current and former employees at the Tribune-Review, Scaife frequently pushes his political and personal agendas into the paper, often misleading readers in the process. "As a reporter, I want to make a solid argument that my reporting is objective," says one staffer at a Scaife-owned paper. "I don't think I have the high moral ground to do that anymore."

And:

Not only has Scaife occasionally suited news coverage to his taste, he has done it in a way that leaves readers unaware of his tinkering. He pushes the paper to run stories that rely on quotes or reports from organizations he funds, yet the articles rarely disclose Scaife's connection. The result is a kind of "information laundering," as one former reporter calls it. When a Scaife-inspired article that quotes a Scaife-funded foundation is published in the Tribune-Review, the story appears more reputable than it otherwise would.

But let's get down to specifics.  Specifically this article (it's on the front page, by the way), titled:

GOP group focused on policy, not party

Which group?  Let's see:

A conservative interest group is working to “improve the gene pool” in Congress, a spokesman said.

But the typical target of this group is unusual: Republicans.

The Washington-based Club for Growth often targets GOP lawmakers who stray from a conservative philosophy on tax, spending and free-trade issues. Its willingness to take on Republicans in primaries sets it apart.

Ah, the Club for Growth.  And guess what the reporter fails to mention?

• Scaife donated $50,000 to the Club for Growth Action in 2010.
• Scaife donated $75,000 to the Citizens Club for Growth in 2003.
• Scaife donated $50,000 to the Citizens Club for Growth in 2004.
• Scaife donated $25,000 to the Citizens Club for Growth Inc in 2005.

That's 200,000 reasons why there should have been a mention.  But let's dig further.

First there's this:

In 2004, Toomey came within 17,000 votes of beating Sen. Arlen Specter in a Republican primary even though the GOP establishment, including President George W. Bush and then-Sen. Rick Santorum, supported Specter.

The Club considered Specter a Republican-in-name-only, or “RINO,” and a liberal Republican who had to go, said Barney Keller, Club’s spokesman. By 2010, Specter changed his party registration to Democrat and lost the primary to former Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak. Toomey, who was the Club’s president from 2005 through 2009, defeated Sestak in the general election. The Club for Growth spent $2.6 million on Toomey’s behalf.

Do we need to discuss the $21,000 Scaife donated to Toomey For Senate between 2003 and 2009?

Then there's these two references:

Club-backed Republican Sharon Angle, who won a three-way primary but lost in 2010 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid...

And:

The Club helped challenger Richard Mourdock defeat veteran GOP Sen. Richard Lugar...

Do I need to point out Scaife's support of Angle in 2006 ($2100) and Mourdock in 2012 ($2500)?

All that money and no mention of it?

I guess Scaife's influence on the Tribune-Review's news coverage continues.

Ah...Leave It To A Porn Star

News from San Francisco:

Porn star Jenna Jameson chose a familiar stage to make her endorsement for the 2012 presidential election Thursday night. At a San Francisco strip club, the former adult actress and stage performer said she was ready for a Romney presidency.

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

And this piece in the HuffingtonPost leads us to learn that Ms Jay-Jay is indeed, rich - worth somewhere around $30 million.

So the star of Saturday Night Beaver, Please Cum Inside Me, and I Love Lesbians (volumes 1 and 10), has stated the obvious about how class influences politics and gone with the Mitt-ster.

As The Good Book says:

And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? (Matthew 21:16)

Praise, indeed.

For Chick-fil-A: A Thorough Explanation of a Bible-based Marriage

Who knew their CEO was so...uh...open-minded?

PA Congressman Mike Kelly Likens Birth Control Mandate to Pearl Harbor and 9/11

Rep. Mike Kelly in his natural habitat

US Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Butler, PA) commenting yesterday on the mandatory contraception coverage going into effect that day (via Talking Points Memo):

“I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack,” Kelly said, according to NBC. “I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.”

Yes, requiring all businesses -- including those owned by religious institutions -- to have insurance which covers women's reproductive healthcare needs is exactly like Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

If Kelly truly believes this, he should think seriously about jumping off the upper floors of a very tall building -- the way people had to at the World Trade Towers when they were attacked. Otherwise, he should think seriously about shutting the fuck up.

Missa Eaton is running against this assclown. You should think seriously about throwing her some bucks.

Here's what the Affordable Care Act does for women (when its not busy raping churches):

The Trib Gets It Wrong. Again.

The recidivism rate among those arrested and released by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has been making the rounds of the right wing noise machine recently.

There's this from Fox News:

Roughly one in six illegal immigrants is re-arrested on criminal charges within three years of release, according to new government data being released Tuesday.

Those charges range from murder to drunken-driving and, according to House Republicans pushing out the report, are symptoms of what they describe as a "dangerous and deadly" immigration policy.

And this from NewsMax:

The Obama administration’s policy of not deporting illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity “is not working for public safety in the United States,” Texas Rep. Ted Poe tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

And now the editorial page of the Tribune-Review:

The federal government’s policy of catching and releasing illegal aliens has had the expected unsavory consequences. A House Judiciary Committee report says the program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent between 2008 and 2011. Or, put another way, illegals who were cut loose have been charged with 19 murders, three attempted murders and 142 sex crimes. Yet another example of “enlightened progressivism,” eh? ...

Too bad none of the actual, you know, reality based numbers actually support this right wing narrative.

First off, let's look at recidivism.  From the Pew Trusts:

Recidivism is the act of reengaging in criminal offending despite having been punished. The prison recidivism rate—the subject of this report—is the proportion of persons released from prison who are rearrested, reconvicted or returned to custody within a specific time period. Typically, recidivism studies follow released offenders for three years following their release from prison or placement on probation.

And what does Pew say is the recidivism rate overall?

The Pew/ASCA survey found the threeyear return-to-prison rate for inmates released in 1999 to be 45.4 percent, and 43.3 percent for those released in 2004.

Now ask yourselves a question: Is a 16% recidivism rate greater or lesser than a 43% recidivism rate?

MediaMatters has more.

RIP Gore Vidal

If you haven't read any of his books/essays, do.

UPDATE: If I had seen this first, I wouldn't have bothered to put up this post.

Geez, They're Still On This?

From Scaife's braintrust at the Trib:

A federal court at last has confirmed what most suspected all along: Political appointees were involved in the Obama Justice Department’s puzzling dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The role of politics in Justice’s decision-making was widely questioned after the case was cut loose despite video evidence showing a party member brandishing a nightstick outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.

Judicial Watch sought answers, filing a Freedom of Information Act request for relevant documents. The Justice Department ignored it. The legal watchdog group then filed a lawsuit to obtain the records.

In a ruling awarding some litigation fees and costs sought by Judicial Watch, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia noted that the group was right about politics’ role — and deception by a senior Justice official:

“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding ... (its) dismissal ... which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General (Thomas) Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”

Ah...Judicial Watch.  Do I need to point out the millions of dollars in support ($8.74 million, much more than any other foundations - indeed more than all the other foundations combined) given to Judicial Watch by the foundations controlled by Trib owner, Richard Mellon Scaife?

I guess I do.

But let's take a look at what Perez said in his testimony.  When asked whether any political appointees were involved in the decision not to pursue the case, he answered:

ASST. ATTY. GEN. PEREZ: No. The decisions were made by Loretta King in consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

In this Judicial Watch decision, however, the court said:

The Court finds that the foregoing emails added, at least to some degree, “‘to the fund of information that citizens may use in making vital political choices.’” Cotton, 63 F.3d at 1120 (citation omitted). The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.

Which is not exactly the same thing.  More investigation is necessary to find out whether the "conferring" crossed the line into "involved" in the decision making."  And that's completely valid.

It's also a far cry from saying that Perez lied.

Did you know that the decision not to prosecute those two New Black Panther Party guys was made by the Bush Administration DOJ?

Mitt Romney's Trickle Down Economics: The Hot Chocolate Edition

Via Jesus' General:

On their way out, Ann throws away her half-consumed hot chocolate, but Mitt approaches the counter. "I know you guys can't sell this again, but I was wondering if one of you guys wanted the rest of my hot chocolate."  

"No thanks," one of the other baristas told him, wondering if this was some sort of bizarre joke.  

"I don't want to waste it, there's still plenty left, it's still perfectly good..."

Got backwash? What's wrong with this guy?!

Gov. Romney Praises Socialized Medicine

The Washington Post's Wonkblog reports that at a fundraiser in Israel, presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said this:

When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs.

What's the problem, you might ask?  I'll let the Wonkblog continue:

Israel regulates its health care system aggressively, requiring all residents to carry insurance and capping revenue for various parts of the country’s health care system.

Israel created a national health care system in 1995, largely funded through payroll and general tax revenue. The government provides all citizens with health insurance: They get to pick from one of four competing, nonprofit plans. Those insurance plans have to accept all customers—including people with pre-existing conditions—and provide residents with a broad set of government-mandated benefits.

Uh-oh.  But perhaps the Wonkblog has it wrong.  Here's what the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes the health care system over there:

The Ministry of Health is responsible for the development of health policy, operation of the nation's public health services and management of the governmental health care budget. The government also owns and operates many of the nation's larger hospitals. It licenses the medical and paramedical professions and initiates and oversees implementation of all health-related legislation passed by the Knesset. Medical services are provided through four health insurance companies, known as sick funds: Kupat Holim Clalit, Kupat Holim Maccabi, Kupat Holim Meuhedet and Kupat Holim Leumit. Kupat Holim Clalit (General Sick Fund), the largest organization and the first health insurance institution, was founded in 1911 by a small group of agricultural workers and taken over by the Histadrut (General Federation of Labor) in 1920.

And:

Even though health insurance was not mandatory in Israel until 1995, 96% of the population were insured before the National Health Insurance Law came into effect.

And then finally:

The law provides that:

Every resident must register as a member with one of the four sick funds.

The sick funds may not bar applicants on any grounds, including age and state of health.

Hmmm. The state caps prices, and citizens are required to participate.

Mitt Romney praises socialized medicine.

Jack Kelly...Friday?

On Friday, our trusty conservative columnist at the P-G posted a column that began thusly:

Team Obama has rushed out an unintentionally hilarious ad attacking Mitt Romney for quoting the president verbatim. It is revealing in multiple ways:

The ad charges, falsely, that Mr. Romney distorted what President Barack Obama said in Roanoke, Va., last Friday: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

There's nothing new about the mendacity. Since May, Team Obama has spent about $100 million on ads attacking Mr. Romney for jobs cut at firms acquired by Bain Capital. The jobs were cut after Mr. Romney left to head up the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. Jonathan Lavine, the Bain executive who made the cuts the ads decry, is a major Obama fundraiser.

But this new ad is so poorly edited it is self-refuting. Included in it is footage that shows Mr. Obama saying exactly the words Mr. Romney said he said.

And in doing so, he joined a distinguished crowd of conservatives who are content with disregarding the truth  in order to try to make some political points.  They'll snip away context and in doing so make one thing sound like another.

It's another form of a lie of omission.  Let me explain.  Again.

Here's the ad that Jack misreads:


You will notice the deception that Jack is foisting upon you.  The part where the ad says "exactly the words Mr. Romney said he said" are the words that come directly from the deceptive Romney campaign ad.  The point of the "tampered" ad is to show, well, that the Romney camp tampered with what Obama actually said.

Jack's hoping his audience doesn't check his work.  Luckily for his audience, I will.

(Didn't I already do this?  That's right - for Selena Zito.  I guess this is yet another right wing zombie lie.)

What, exactly was tampered with?  This is the speech from which the snipped sentence was taken:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. [emphasis added.]

Take a look at the paragraph the Romney folks snipped (I bolded the snipped sentences to make them easier to find).  It's about infrastructure.

Factcheck.org agrees with me, Jack.  As do the fact checkers at the Washington Post:

The biggest problem with Romney’s ad is that it leaves out just enough chunks of Obama’s words — such as a reference to “roads and bridges”— so that it sounds like Obama is attacking individual initiative.

It's taken out of context. It's deceptive.  It's a lie.

Jack Kelly is lying to you, folks.

100 Days

For more info, go here.

PA Gov. Corbett Doesn't Know New Voter ID Requirements That He Signed Into Law

While Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett (R) doesn't seem to know what actually qualifies as proper ID under the new Voter Suppression ID law he signed,

I bet he knows why he signed it:

FUN FACTS!

1 in 3 PA voters don't even know about the new voter ID law!  

Between 11 and 13% of PA's eligible voters, registered voters, and people who voted in 2008 believe they have the photo ID they need to vote in November, but actually don't!  

A whopping 43% of Philadelphia voters may not possess a valid PennDOT ID!

Had the new law been in effect in 2008, Barack Obama would have lost the state’s contest to John McCain by 200,000 votes! (The only fact that Republicans care about.)

What's up with that?

North Pittsburgh Politics points out that mailers sent out by Republican candidate Rep. Randy Vulakovich for an August 7th Special Election for PA State Senate District 40 (Jane Orie's old seat) contain absentee ballot applications that do not comply with the new Voter Suppression ID laws, while his Democratic challenger, Sharon Brown, is using the new absentee ballot applications that includes a section requiring PA State issued ID number/last 4 digits of Social Security number.

I'm finding conflicting information on exactly when the new requirements take effect. Anyone know?

In any case, since Vulakovich voted for the law -- and so must obviously be very concerned about voter fraud -- it's interesting that he doesn't want to be absolutely certain that the people he thinks will vote for him are eligible to cast that vote. He seems to be concerned here for example:

What is your position on the State's tightening restrictions on requirements to vote?  

Rep. Randy Vulakovich: "It’s important to protect the cornerstone of our Democracy and to maintain an open and honest process. One person, one vote."

Important except when voting for Vulakovich, I guess...

So How Badly Did Romney Do In London?

It was pretty bad.  But first, some context from Talkingpointsmemo:

Undergirding Mitt Romney’s trip to Europe and Israel this week was a single concept: President Obama has weakened the view of America in the eyes of foreign leaders thanks to a policy of appeasement and “apology.” How the world views America is important, Romney said, and he’s going to see to it that America’s reputation overseas is bolstered on his watch.

Within 24 hours of Romney landing abroad, that premise had unraveled and Romney’s own top surrogates were scoffing at the notion that foreign opinions of America mattered at all to American voters.

But what went wrong in London?

Lots.  Gaffes galore.

This one:

Security shortfalls and a now-cancelled strike from border guards make for a "disconcerting" start to the London Olympic Games, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney said in an interview Wednesday.

Speaking with NBC News, Romney said it was too early to tell if the London organizers were ready for the start of the Games.

"You know it's hard to know just how well it will turn out," Romney said. "There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials - that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

Led to a British rebuke:

Romney's remarks became a full-blown controversy Thursday morning, when Prime Minister David Cameron -- asked in a press conference about disruptions in London's subway service -- defended the game's organizers.

We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest most active bustling cities anywhere in the world," Cameron said. "Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere. I visited Naypyidaw recently, in Burma, they've got six-lane highways and no cars on them. This is a busy, bustling city so inevitably you're going to have challenges."

It was a gaffe that Romney had to correct but it led to another lesser, though funnier gaffe:

In an interview with NBC on Thursday, Mr Romney said stories about difficulties with security guards and threats of border staff strikes were "obviously... not something which is encouraging".

Some eyebrows were raised when Mitt Romney referred to Ed Miliband as 'Mr Leader' But following talks with Mr Cameron he said mistakes were to be expected and he was sure the Games would be a success.

"To look out of the back side of 10 Downing Street and see a venue having been constructed, knowing that athletes will be carrying out their activities almost in the back yard of the prime minister is really quite an accomplishment," said Mr Romney.

What's the funny? I'll let a native British news source explain:

Firstly, in Britain, "backside" means "ass". As in the part of the body. Secondly, "10 Downing Street" is often used in political reporting as a synonym for a press spokesman for the prime minister, in the same way as "the White House" can say things or have opinions.

I'm thinking that if you wanted to "bolster" America's image, the first thing to do is to not insult your hosts or look like an ignorant backside ass.

Yea, Romney's ready for the international scene.

Darn That Chris Potter!

In a comment to this blog post, comet pilot Bram bammed:

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/SlagHeap/archives/2012/07/24/did-the-state-really-concede-that-voter-fraud-never-happens

It's good that the lawyers put this aside. The important issue isn't whether or not there has been vote fraud -- the important thing is that the "remedy" or "safeguard" disenfranchises thousands of people in this year.

People are realizing how many people get by without "necessities" like a Drivers' License, prescription medication, and Giant Eagle cards.

The link is, of course, to Potter's slag heap.

In a blog post titled "Did the state REALLY concede that voter fraud never happens?" Potter gives us an annoying answer:

Not exactly.

His reasoning?

As the stipulation agreement notes, the state's "sole rationale for the Photo ID law," is contained in a response to written questions filed by the ACLU. And in that answer, the state makes quite clear that it has plenty of suspicions that Voter ID does take place ... and that one purpose of the law is to ferret out such cases.

State officials "are aware of reports indicating that votes have been cast in the name of registered electors who are deceased, who no longer reside in Pennsylvania , or who no longer reside in the jurisdiction where the vote is cast," the state's answer asserts. And without some proof of ID, the state contends, "there is a risk that votes may be cast in the names of registered electors who are dead or who have left [the area] by a person other than the registered voters ... Requiring a photo ID is one way to ensure that every elector who presents himself to vote [is] the person that he purports to be, and to ensure that the public has confidence in the electoral process. The requirement of a photo ID is a tool to detect and deter voter fraud." [emphasis in original.]

I haven't been able to find the State's response to the ACLU's interrogatories (a little help, Chris? Bram?) so I can't link to it.  So while Pennsylvania stipulates no evidence of voter fraud, they're now saying that they need the law to find the evidence they suspect is out there.

Potter has more:

What's more, even after reading a fuller explanation of the state's position, it's not as if they have a particularly strong case. Many of the voting irregularities it cites are more than a decade old, took place in other states, or both. Some of them are simply canards: Chris Briem at Null Space, for example, has previously addressed the myth of dead voters showing up at polls.

But still, he says, it's a "distortion" to say that Pennsylvania admitted that there's no voter fraud.

Ok, fine.  He's right.  Leave it to Potter to buzz kill our triumphant chest thumping with, you know, facts and stuff.

Follow Up: On The Non-Existent Voter Fraud

The P-G had the story yesterday:

State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

Here's the stipulation in the event you wanted to read it for yourself.  The first two points (FIRST TWO POINTS) are as follows:

There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any investigations or prosecutions in other states;

The parties are not aware of any incidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania and do not have direct personal knowledge of in person voter fraud elsewhere;

However, when asked about the stipulation, Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele strayed from the truth:

Asked about a stipulation, signed by both parties in the lawsuit, that the state would offer neither evidence of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania nor evidence that voter fraud would be likely without the law this November, Ms. Aichele said there are few cases of such kind of fraud.

"The attorney general is not going to pursue the issue of cases brought for voter impersonations, for voter fraud," she said. "If there are cases, there are very few."

But she suggested this might be because district attorneys use limited resources to prosecute other crimes: "If you're a district attorney in a county, and you have a choice to prosecute crimes like murder, rape and armed robbery, you're going to do that before you go after the voter fraud cases."

But the state stipulated that there have been no investigations - how can there be a case without an investigation?.  Aichele is trying to say there have been cases ("a few") but implied that since other crimes like  murder and rape take precedence those cases aren't pursued.

But the state stipulated no incidence of in-person voter fraud (the sort the Voter ID bill is supposed to combat).

But the big point is found here, on the pages of the Trib:

Critics note that Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley acknowledged in a stipulation with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia for the Commonwealth Court hearing that Pennsylvania hasn’t investigated or prosecuted anyone for “in-person” voter fraud and won’t offer evidence of voter fraud.

So if ever, in the future, our good friends on Scaife's braintrust ever assert the "fact" of voter fraud in Pennsylvania, we'll know that they're lying.  It was already reported in their own paper that Pennsylvania stipulated no voter fraud.

NO VOTER FRAUD in Pennsylvania.

Guess What? NO VOTER FRAUD

From the Post-Gazette:

State attorneys defending the new voter ID law at a hearing beginning Wednesday will present no evidence that in-person electoral fraud is likely to occur this November without the law, according to a document signed earlier this month.

The state and the parties challenging the law agreed in the court document that neither side knows of cases of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania.

But...but I thought there was "significant voter fraud plaguing Pennsylvania's elections."

Does that mean that Representative Metcalfe was lying?

Say it ain't so!

Who knew I was standing so close to the Muslim Brotherhood?

A photo I took on March 14, 2008, whilst standing mere feet away from Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton

While Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) may have decried Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-McCarthyville) baseless attacks on Huma Abedin -- a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton -- for having imaginary ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Newt Gingrich has come to Bachmann's defense.

Bachmann has also accused the country's first Muslim congressman, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), of being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Abedin has had to be placed under extra security after being threatened. And, Clinton's motorcade was pelted with tomatoes and shoes while in Egypt by crowds who bought into the claims by Bachmann and others of Obama Administration ties to the Brotherhood.

That's our Michele! Spreading joy and sunshine where she goes!

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. People who don't stop people with guns kill people.

Think Progress documents the victim blaming:

Former State Senator Claims Colorado Shooting Victims Lacked Courage To Stop Gunman

Zito Shills For The Romney Campaign. Again.

And remember, this is one of the people the Trib's news division has covering the Romney campaign.

She begins her opinion column with a bit of Romney-dishonesty:

Mitt Romney was fired up.

“The president actually said, if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.” He paused and threw his hands up before adding: “Really?”

Ah, Selena. But that's not all the president said, did he?  As the good book says "the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).  To see the truth, we have to take a look at what the president actually said.  There are two things to keep in mind here - how Romney lies about it and then how Selena Zito lets him get away with it.

The current Romney lie was snipped from a campaign speech in Roanoke Virginia:

[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. [emphasis added]

Now go back and look at how Romney characterized it.  Take a look at the middle paragraph.  Obama was
talking about various forms of infrastructure (roads, bridges, the internet), pointing out that a business' success is built upon the infrastructure that someone else built.

And yet, Romney, by snipping out the context, makes it sound as though Obama said that someone else built the successful business.  A lie.

Whatever the rhetorical distance you find between the truth and Romney's spin on it, is exactly the rhetorical distance that Zito allowed him to have - by not correcting him.

And this is a reporter that the Tribune-Review sends to cover the Romney campaign.