From Rachel Slajda's November 6 post at TMPDC:

 At yesterday's tea party rally on Capitol Hill, at least one protester brandished a large graphic photograph of the victims of the Dachau Nazi concentration camp, comparing health care reform to Nazi policies. Today, Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph "inappropriate."

[...]

Cantor, in an interview today with Bloomberg, also offered some criticism of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

In a climate where Republicans who criticize Limbaugh come crawling back on their knees (see TPM's "Forgive Me Rush" photo feature), Cantor's office is bragging about the congressman taking a stand.

Cantor's spokesman, Brad Dayspring, emailed TPMDC a link to Glenn Thrush's post on Cantor's remarks.

It's worth noting that Limbaugh's made the comment in question -- "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" -- on Aug. 6. Cantor at the time did not respond publicly to calls from Jewish groups to condemn the remarks.

Previously:

 Limbaugh: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate"

Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his November 6 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Goldline

• Hydroxatone

• American Future Fund

• Bloomberg Television

• Superior Gold Group

• Lifelock

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce

• National Review

• Tax Masters

• Premier Bath

• Lifestyle Lift

• Lear Capital

• Rosland

• Roche

• Goldline

• Foundation for a Better Life

• Explore Branson

• U.S. Chamber of Comemrce

• Zero Water

• Wall Street Journal

• American Advisor's Group

WorldNetDaily has appended an "editor's note" to Jerome Corsi's article falsely claiming that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan advised the Obama transition:

EDITOR'S NOTE: Shortly after this story was posted, the Huffington Post ran a piece claiming WND was attempting to "smear" President Obama by naming him "as the man who guided Nidal Malik Hasan to his murderous rampage at Ft. Hood yesterday."

However, Hasan is being reported as a participant in the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute's Presidential Transition Task Force, not as a member, noting the group was a university think-tank, not part of the Obama administration official transition team.

Further, the institute's deputy director is quoted saying he is unable to say if Hasan made any input to the group's final recommendations.

Other participants in the task force included many members of congressional staff  who work with both the House and Senate homeland security committees, as well as staff from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice.

This is lame for several reasons. First, it's at the end of the article, not the beginning.Second, this editor's note corrects something the Huffington Post wrote, which is outside WND's bailiwick. Third, WND changed nothing else in the article -- the headline still falsely claims "Shooter advised Obama transition."

Finally, WND is still not admitting Corsi's claim is completely false even as it keeps proving it wrong -- as this editor's note does.

To sum up: The editor's note corrects not something WND published that desperately needs a correction but, rather, something somebody else wrote about WND, which has no business being in this article.

Is WND so stubborn and/or ethically deficient that it cannot publish a simple, honest correction of an obviously false statement? It appears so.

The Chicago Tribune, on its Swampland blog, has a story today claiming that the White House contacted a Democratic "strategist" and told him or her not to appear on Fox News. The strategist is unnamed, and the White House has vehemently denied the charge. The one voice in the Swampland piece bolstering the claim is Pat Caddell, former pollster for Jimmy Carter. Caddell is a Fox News contributor, and despite his work for President Carter has a documented history of furthering conservative misinformation.

Since his affiliation with Carter, Caddell has attacked the Clinton administration, Janet Reno, and the Democratic party itself. Caddell was recently featured on The Glenn Beck Show decrying what he described as the "gangster politics" of the Obama administration.

So, maybe not the best person to back up an anonymous claim showing a Democratic administration in a negative light.

In its "exclusive" and completely false report that the Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition," WorldNetDaily exploits the murder of American soldiers to sell books smearing Muslims.

Near the end of the WND article, "senior staff reporter" Jerome Corsi takes the opportunity to plug a book published recently by World Net Daily Books and co-authored by professional Islam hater P. David Gaubatz. Corsi writes:

According to an explosive new book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military - which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat.

At the bottom of Corsi's article is a "special offer" to "Get 'Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America,' autographed, from WND's Superstore." That "offer" links to the "WND Superstore," which sells Muslim Mafia at the "discount price" of $22.95.

From Gaubatz's November 6 interview with Frontpagemag:

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

A terrible tragedy occurred yesterday at Ft. Hood, Texas. Because you are the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book Muslim Mafia, I would like to ask you this: are there any correlations between your message in the book about the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and the murder spree at Ft. Hood?

Gaubatz: Thanks Jamie.

Yes. The murders by Malik Nadal Hasan at Ft. Hood, TX are not a 'lone wolf incident' as being described by most media organizations. Hasan had been taught the ideology that is being advocated by hundreds of Islamic scholars and Imams in the U.S. We as a country can continue to deny there are numerous Islamic leaders and their supporting organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and MANA, to name a few, who advocate killing innocent men, women, and children whom they allege 'oppress Islam.'

How many more incidents similar to this that have been occurring in America does it take before even the media wants to report the truth? Politicians will always say or do whatever will get them their next vote in an upcoming election, but there was a time in our history when journalists reported everything and were not concerned with 'political correctness.'

This type of journalistic reporting is dangerous and in itself is a national security issue. Journalists and their affiliated news organization are so afraid of being labeled or sued by organizations such as CAIR that they will withhold the truth from the American people. In part, the murders of innocent people are partly the fault of such journalists and politicians who support organizations such as CAIR.

FP: Your thoughts on CAIR and what happened at Ft. Hood?

Gaubatz: My team and I have conducted first-hand research at over 200 Islamic Centers in the U.S., and in various Islamic organizations such as CAIR. There is one common denominator: There is an open hatred being advocated by Islamic scholars toward Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not adhere to 'all aspects' of Sharia law (Islamic law).

The materials being distributed by these scholars are very clear in their message:  violence against anyone who "oppresses" Islam is justified. It makes them subject to the punishment of death. Rifqa Bary (the 17-year-old Muslim girl who left Islam for Christianity) tried to speak out, but has been ignored. Many more Muslims have tried to speak out but the PR machine of the Muslim Brotherhood (backed by Saudi and Egyptian money) keeps them silent.

Young Muslims know what is being taught at their mosques, but have no other choice but to follow their parents and the Imams. If they try to speak out they know there are few politicians, law enforcement, lawyers, or judges who will help them. They are afraid of becoming the victims of people like Malik Hasan who will carry out the orders of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Previously:

Fox trumpets CAIR conspiracy theory charges made by author with anti-Islam history

From a November 6 post on Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog:

Previously:

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

From G. Gordon Liddy's website:

Previously:

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

Newsbusters' Brent Baker was incensed that some news outlets, just hours after yesterday's hand gun massacre, failed to emphasize that the shooter was Muslim. But note the accolades Baker tossed ABC News' way [emphasis added]:

Neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News, in their East coast feeds Thursday night, noted the Muslim religious beliefs of the mass killer at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas, but ABC anchor Charles Gibson wasn't cowed by political correctness as he teased World News, “Fort Hood tragedy: An Army officer, a Muslim convert, is the suspect in a shooting spree...” Introducing his first story, Gibson referred to how Major Nidal Malik Hasan “an army officer, a Muslim, opened fire with handguns...” (With a range of frequency, during late afternoon/early evening coverage, CNN, FNC and MSNBC all identified Hasan as a Muslim.)

Slightly ironic, no? The fact that Gibson got the story wrong (Hasan, according to his cousin, is not "a Muslim convert") didn't bother media critic Baker. In fact, Baker toasted Gibson for getting the story wrong.

And right-wing media critics wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

Linda Chavez compares President Obama's statement about the Ft. Hood shootings to his predecessor's deer-in-the-headlights decision to keep reading a children's book during the 9/11 attacks:

Before he got to the issue on everyone's mind - namely the deaths of Americans in uniform - the president gave a "shout-out" to government bureaucrats gathered for a previously scheduled conference at the Interior Department, complete with appreciative chuckles. He treated the event like a pep rally rather than a tragic occasion with a wider audience than those gathered in the room. I wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama's performance to President Bush's "Pet Goat" moment on 9/11. I won't hold my breath.

I'm always amused when right-wingers take a break from angrily accusing everyone else of "forgetting the horrors of 9/11" and instead grossly understate what happened happened that day in order to try to score cheap political points.  

Anyway: on September 11, 2001, George Bush was told the nation was under attack, and responded by reading a children's book.

Now, one might reasonably argue that the best thing for Bush to do during a crisis was, in fact, to keep himself busy reading My Pet Goat rather than screwing up important decisions.  But in any case, that is not even remotely like anything that happened yesterday.

According to a check on TVeyes.com, the phrase "gun control" has not been mentioned once* in the context of the Ft. Hood shooting by any reporter, anchor or pundit appearing on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, or MSNBC.

In the dozens and dozens of cumulative hours of Ft. Hood coverage amassed by those television outlets, as they focus on the latest workplace mass shooting, the phrase "gun control" has not been uttered once. Once again, in the wake of epic gun violence, the topic of guns and non-stop gun violence in America is not on the media table and is not open for debate.

When the Columbine killers unleashed their fury inside a suburban Denver high school in April 1999, killing 15 and wounding more than 20, the horror show set off all kinds of media-driven debates about gun control. i.e. Were current laws too lenient, etc.

Today, the press couldn't care less about the issue or the related policy debate. It seems gun advocates have cowed the press corps, even as we watch wave after wave of mass shootings.

UPDATED: My bad. Since yesterday afternoon when the avalanche of Ft. Hood TV coverage began, the phrase "gun control" has been mentioned exactly one time, according to TVeyes.com. It was on MSNBC last night, and was uttered by guest, General (Ret.) Barry McCaffrey. 

This was the context:

Apparently it was two civilian handguns. Even there, there is ferocious gun control measures on soldiers and families on a military installation. They have to register them. Single soldiers in barracks, never allowed access to their weapon, they have to sign them out.

UPDATED: In what appears to be yet another workplace mass shooting, at least ten people have reportedly been shot in Orlando; two killed. We'll see if "gun control" is mentioned during that story's coverage today.

Lost in the shuffle of more pressing matters yesterday was the news that former New York police chief Bernard Kerik pleaded guilty to several charges, including tax fraud and lying to White House officials, as part of a plea deal to avoid an upcoming trial.

As we've detailed, Newsmax has been Kerik's biggest champion over the past several months, working to rehabilitate his reputation by giving him a regular column and penning fawning profiles that whitewash his deeds in order to portray him as a "American hero" victimized by "overzealous federal prosecutors."

However much it may have wanted to, even Newsmax couldn't put a positive spin on this latest Kerik news. A Nov. 4 article on initial reports of the plea deal told the story unusually straight, albeit failing to tell readers that Kerik is (well, was) a Newsmax columnist. Newsmax went with an Associated Press story on Kerik's court appearance.

Kerik, by the way, is the second Newsmax columnist to fall by the wayside in recent weeks. John L. Perry hasn't written a column since he infamously called for a military coup against President Obama, which Newsmax was forced to retract. It remains to be seen whether Pat Boone's column will continue after Newsmax retracted his call for a "tenting"-style fumigation, "figuratively, but in a very real way," of the "varmints" in the White House.

From James Poniewozik:

As anyone following health reform knows, centrism is a political position too. And you see moderate bias - i.e., a preference for centrism - whenever a news outlet assumes that the truth must be "somewhere in the middle." You see it whenever an organization decides that "balance" requires equal weight for an opposing position, however specious: "Some, however, believe global warming is a myth." (Moderate bias would also require me to find a countervailing liberal position and pretend that it is equivalent to global-warming denial. Sorry.)

Often, moderate bias is just the result of caution, but the effect is to bolster centrist political positions - not least by implying that they are not political positions at all but occupy a happy medium between the nutjobs. Meanwhile, conservatives see moderate bias as liberal, and liberals see it as conservative - letting journalists conclude that it's not bias at all.

Like Politico did yesterday, WashPost states as fact that 10,000 health reformer haters gathered in D.C. And like Politico, the WashPost provides no sources for that (generous?) estimate:

With the stage set for a historic House vote on health-care reform this weekend, an estimated 10,000 conservative activists descended on Capitol Hill on Thursday for a campaign-style rally in a last-ditch effort to defeat a bill they demonized as "Pelosi-Care."  

Question: Rather than relying on official D.C. estimates, did the WashPost simply rely on Politico, which seemed to rely on nobody for its 10,000 number? i.e. Was the WashPost just cribbing off Politico?

As we noted yesterday, here's the proper way to report on political protests, courtesy of MSNBC's First Read [emphasis added]:

NBC's Luke Russert, reporting from the West Front of the Capitol, passes along this photo of a cartoon Pelosi with the words "UNAMERICAN MCCARTHYITE" scrawled across. The crowd, per Russert, is so far about 3,000 to 3,500, according to Capitol Police estimates...

*** UPDATE *** Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000.

Isn't that fascinating? NBC relied on actual police estimates and reported the crowd was 4,000 strong. Politico and WashPost relied on phantom sources and reported the crowd was 10,000 strong. Which report seems more credible?

UPDATED: Do we even have to mention that right-wing media outlets invented all sorts of numbers for Thursday's modest protest? (Two million? Do I hear 2 million??) The WashTimes, for instance, went with "tens of thousands." But we expect that from propaganda outlets. The WashPost and Politico though, ought to be much more precise in their reporting.

Another right-wing protest heavily promoted by Fox News and other right-wing personalities, another round of hyperbolic crowd overestimates by the very people who had aggressively begged their viewers and listeners to attend.

Baseless estimates from the cheering section include:

• Stephen Moore, who claimed that 50,000 attended;
• Franklin Raff, producer for G. Gordon Liddy, who claimed "about a million" attended;   
• And Sean Hannity, who claimed that 20,000 attended before claiming that 5,000 attended (and later returning to the more robust 20,000).

While falling all over themselves to make up a number that would befit earlier forecasts of a "massive" crowd, have these media figures tripped over the facts? Well, it turns out that U.S. Capitol Police officers reportedly estimated to MSNBC that about 4,000 protesters showed up to yell about health care reform.

 Made up numbers? Makes you wonder if the event's promoters are embarrassed by the turnout.

From Alternet:

Earlier today, a hospitalized Glenn Beck tweeted in praise of the "AMAZING drs/nurses" who have cared for him since the emergency removal of his inflamed appendix yesterday afternoon.

The quality of care he is receiving should not have come as a surprise. When Beck complained of acute abdominal pain during his radio program on Wednesday, he was rushed to a nearby hospital. The security-conscious Beck has not disclosed the name of the facility, but it's a safe bet that it is staffed by proud members of a storied union: New York's Local 1199, aka United Healthcare Workers East, which belongs to the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU has organized all of Manhattan's major hospitals, including every facility to which Beck could have conceivably been sent.

...

While he's lying on his back, Beck should take advantage of his illness to begin his self-education. He might ask his "amazing" nurses what they think about their wages and benefits, which are some of the best in the country. He should ask them to talk about the relationship between those wages and their yellow and purple union cards. He might learn that they enjoy some of the highest standards for healthcare jobs in the country, not because of the "free market," but because generations of 1199 members fought for them.

The quality of care Beck is receiving is directly connected to the proud history of New York's Local 1199. To pick just one study out of many, research by the U.S. National Institutes of Health shows that heart attack victims sent to unionized hospitals enjoy higher survival rates over those sent to non-unionized hospitals by between seven and 11 percent.

As Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Glenn Beck has waged an almost non-stop smear campaign versus SEIU over the last year.

Here's a question for you:  Suppose there's a guy that insults your co-workers on a regular basis.  He makes fun of their looks.  He gives them insulting and sexist nicknames.  And suppose one day you have, say, a company picnic or event.  Do you invite that guy -- who doesn't even work with you -- to give a speech?

If you're the House Republicans, the answer is an enthusiastic, 'Yes!'  At the Capitol today, House Republicans rallied against health care - and featured radio host Mark Levin.  What has Levin said about the Republicans' colleagues in the House and Senate? 

• Levin on "stretch" Pelosi: "One more face lift and ... those eyes are going to pop right out"

• Levin: SF will keep re-electing "shrill" Pelosi "as long as her makeup holds up"

• Levin said of "Stretch" Pelosi's need for "big military jet": "She wants a really, really big one"

• Levin said of Pelosi: "You could bounce a dime off her cheeks"

• Levin attacks former Senator Hillary Clinton: "Her thighness"

• Levin attacks Sens. Boxer and Kerry: "two complete morons who look like they come straight out of ... The Addams Family"

• Levin calls Sen. Mary Landrieu, "Landfill of Louisiana"

And it's not just sexist attacks on women serving in the House and Senate: 

• Levin: Sotomayor is "Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus about 50 pounds"

• Levin to female caller: "I don't know why your husband doesn't put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here"

• Levin on his "National Organization of Ugly Women" remark: "[F]or now on, it's the National Organization of Really Ugly Women"

Levin, by the way, stands by and is proud of his attacks.  Indeed, he regularly repeats many of them.

(Levin, standing at a healthcare.gop.gov podium, with House Minority Leader John Boehner listening)

Again, it isn't like Mark Levin rushed the stage and grabbed a microphone.  "The great one," as Levin fans such as Rep. Michele Bachmann call him, was an invited guest.

Levin's incendiary attacks aren't a secret.  While we know Republican members and their staff aren't quite tech-savvy, the invention called Google has been around for a while.  Meanwhile, some prominent Republicans - not in the House GOP caucus, apparently - have been raising concerns about Levin. 

And there's the big question:  Given the knowledge of Levin's constant sexist attacks against House and Senate members, why did Congressional Republicans roll out the red carpet for Levin? 

I'm curious because Politico states the number as fact without providing additional information:

The crowd grew to about 10,000 by noon – a significant gathering for a weekday but far less than the 9/12 protests earlier this fall.

Politico's Jonathan Martin clearly seemed impressed that 10,000 people showed up to protest health care reform. But did 10,000 people actually show up? And more importantly, where did that number come from? As we've seen in the recent past, crowd estimates for political rallies can take on a greater significance, and therefore journalists need to be as precise as possible when reporting on the figures. Instead, Politico simply announced 10,000 protesters had rallied without explaining where that figure came from.

By contrast, here's how MSNBC's First Read reported on the rally:

NBC's Luke Russert, reporting from the West Front of the Capitol, passes along this photo of a cartoon Pelosi with the words "UNAMERICAN MCCARTHYITE" scrawled across. The crowd, per Russert, is so far about 3,000 to 3,500, according to Capitol Police estimates...

*** UPDATE *** Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000.

NBC, relying on estimates from local police, put the crowd number at 4,000. So what source did Politico rely on when it arrived at the much larger 10,000 figure?

Curious minds want to know.

UPDATED: Gateway Pundit, last seen lying about the size of the Sept. 12 rally, claims today's protest was "MASSIVE."

Really? 4,000 people, the size of a crowd at a minor league baseball game, now qualifies as "MASSIVE"?

Here's another example of Fox News revealing there's little difference between the language it uses and "Republican activists."  Discussing Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-MN) Fox News-fueled Capitol Hill protest, reporter James Rosen said:

ROSEN:  ... as we keep one eye on this raucous so-called House Call that the Republican activists and conservatives are paying on the west front steps of the Capitol to protest what they call, PelosiCare.

Well that's true.  As Rosen said, Republican activists and conservatives certainly do use that phrase.  And who else?  Fox News.

Fox Nation -- which purports to be fair and balanced and non-biased -- has used the phrase PelosiCare at least a dozen times.  For instance:

Plus, here's Fox News' William Kristol:  "If you like the government's swine flu program, you'll love PelosiCare."

And Fox Business' John Stossel:  "Assuming PelosiCare is something like care in Canada, you see what happened there - people did start to rebel.  Even the doctors started saying, we have to have some private outlet."  [Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, 11/2/09]

Fox News and "Republican activists" - inseparable?

Center for American Progress' Matthew Yglesias brings us these images, originally taken by his colleague Lee Fang at this afternoon's anti-health care rally on Capitol Hill: 

That's the caption "National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany - 1945" over the piled corpses of Holocaust victims.

Fox News figures have spent the last few days aggressively promoting this rally. One of their hosts, Glenn Beck, has spent the last six months joining other media conservatives in comparing every aspect of President Obama's program -- including his health reform plan -- to that of the Nazis.

Fox News owns this sign.