The ultimate goal is to clone Al Gore to serve as a weatherman at every local television station so he can offer the patented Hypocrite-Cast® nightly, but that can’t happen if there are still global warming deniers allowed on the air:

The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs.

“Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,” the group explains on their website. “We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.”

According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

This seems incredibly counter-productive, because the more successful they are in adding names to the ever-growing meteorologist denier list, the faster the notion of “scientific consensus” goes out the window.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

This was attached to the end of a nauseating Boston Globe article celebrating the amorous relations between Occupy protesters:

Editor’s note: This story about relationships that began during Occupy Boston featured a man, Robert Stitham, who is a registered sex offender, according to state records. Had his status been discovered during reporting, the story would not have been published.

Oops.

The Boston Herald called out the Globe for its lazy vetting:

Looks like somebody forgot to Google.

The Monday Boston Globe featured a photo on the front page of its Metro section of a lip-locked couple who “found romance” at Occupy Boston.

“Holding hands outside the food tent before the encampment disbanded,” read the accompanying story, “they were the archetype of an Occupy couple: he, a red-headed Mainer with tattoos on his arms; she, a petite upstate New York girl with a heart-shaped face and a boyish haircut, wearing a knit grandmother sweater three sizes too big.”

Good details — but the story failed to mention one big one: Robert “Red” Stitham, the 25 year-old beau whose relationship with Anya Karasik, 18, is the focus of the piece, is a Level 3 sex offender.

A quick Google search of his name turns up his sex offender notification — complete with his photo — on the website of the police department in Plymouth, where Stitham grew up. A search on the state Sex Offender Registry Board website shows Stitham now lives in a homeless shelter in Boston.

“The Board has determined that these individuals have a high risk to re-offend and that the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active community notification,” the registry site reads.

In 2007, a Barnstable County jury convicted Stitham of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a person over 14, and he was sentenced to 18 months with time served, court records state.

Bias? What bias? Congrats, Boston Globe. You get the Honorary Fishwrap of Record Award.

Yes, again. Those bulldozers are working overtime.

Over Thanksgiving, I told you about the last batch of White House visitor logs quietly dumped over a busy holiday season. I noted MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s August 5 visit (along with several other prog media personalities). It was her fifth visit to Casa Obama; she didn’t respond to questions about what she and her pals discussed with the president. She does, however, have the audacity to blast others in the media for having “political objectives” and taking “talking points.” On a related note, “progressive media stars” Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes bragged last week about their latest off-the-record meeting last week with President Obama to strategize over the payroll tax fight with Republicans.

That visit doesn’t show up in the Christmas visitor log dump just released on December 30. (Maybe it’ll turn up on Valentine’s Day.)

You can view the most recent records right here (may be slow to load; click on the “release date” tab to see December 30 log entries first):

Once again, the new batch reveals even more visits from Robert Creamer — five visits with White House staffers on September 7, 12, 14, 16, and 21 including Stephanie Valencia, Jon Carson, and health care czar NancyAnn DeParle.

Creamer is the convicted felon, Huffington Post/Alinskyite agitator, and husband of Illinois Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. As I noted at Thanksgiving, Creamer was at the White House five times in August 2011 meeting with various officials, including Jon Carson, Cecilia Munoz, and Stephanie Cutter. The Obamacare godfather and Occupy Wall Street promoter is listed some 60 other times in visitor logs since the start of the administration.

Nothing to see here, move along…

Politifact has revealed the “Lie of the Year” for 2011.

First let’s review the last couple of winners, followed by some on the left who applauded Politifact for those choices.

In 2009, Politifact’s Lie of the Year was “Death Panels.” The left applauded the choice.

In 2010, Politifact’s Lie of the Year was “government takeover of health care.” Another liberal round of applause.

This year, Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” is…

What?

A “credibility-killing choice” says one unhappy former customer. “Politifact, RIP” writes MRC’s Quote of the Year winner Paul Krugman. The latter thinks Politifact is terrified of appearing partisan and made this choice to appease the right. Apparently the only way Politifact could avoid appearing partisan would be to give a claim from the right the “Lie of the Year” distinction every single year.

Krugman, et al, are claiming that the Republicans did vote to end Medicare and that Politifact got this one colossally wrong. On that, here’s Avik Roy writing at Forbes.com:

Their [lefty critics of Politifact's 2011 "lie of the year" choice] defense of the “ending Medicare” claim, such as it is, is that using private insurers to deliver health care to seniors, instead of a government agency, fundamentally “ends” the program. This is, plainly, ridiculous. When the British government privatized British Rail in 1993, the railway system did not cease to exist. When Germany privatized Lufthansa in 1994, the German airline wasn’t “ended.”

Similarly, if the government comes up with alternate modes of delivering the same health care to seniors, the program hasn’t been ended. As PolitiFact notes, a more accurate label would be to say that the Ryan plan “privatizes” Medicare. The problem for would-be liberal demagogues is that privatization isn’t the scare word for most Americans that it once was.

But just in case “privatization” is still the scare word it once was, let’s show the “Paul Ryan’s going to kill your grandma” ad one more time:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

“Choose or Lose” had been an MTV election year staple since 1992 — I think they even still showed music videos back then. The supposed point of the campaign was to convince young, most likely left-leaning people who for some reason actually cared what Madonna and Kanye West thought to become involved, motivated and go to the polls en masse. In 2008, that’s exactly what happened, but somehow it wasn’t enough. The slogan that helped usher in the era of “Change” is being changed.

From the New York Times:

After nearly 20 years of “Choose or Lose,” MTV is changing the name of its election season campaign.

The youth cable channel’s coverage will be labeled “Power of 12,” a nod to both the election year and the notion that 18- to 29-year-olds have a lot of political power if they choose to wield it.

The name change is, in part, a statement about the cynical mood of the youth voting bloc. While young people turned out in unusually high numbers to support Barack Obama in 2008, MTV’s research into “Choose or Lose” found that many felt they had lost anyway.

“They were so passionate,” said Stephen K. Friedman, the president of MTV. “And then they hit this wall of the economy.”

The “Power” campaign, to be announced on Monday, implies that choosing is not all that matters. “Voting is one step in the process — just one step,” Mr. Friedman said. “The question for this generation is, they’ve got this power, will they exert it?”

Maybe the new campaign should take more of an introspective tone: “Be careful what you ask for and even more careful what you fall for.”

(h/t Weasel Zippers)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Nice try, Time, but this obvious and cheap attempt to sell magazines and make money for your Wall Street masters by exploiting those engaged in a struggle against the greedy upper one percent will not go unnoticed:

#OccupyTimeMagazine

From MSNBC:

TIME magazine revealed the 2011 choice for its iconic Person of the Year cover live on TODAY Wednesday. The Protester is this year’s choice, managing editor Rick Stengel told Matt Lauer and Ann Curry.

“There was a lot of consensus among our people,” Stengel told the TODAY anchors as he revealed the magazine’s cover. “It felt right.”

As it has for the past 84 years, the weekly newsmagazine selected the person (or sometimes group, or thing) that its editors deemed had the single greatest impact during the past year, for better or for worse.

I had a feeling this was coming… too bad they didn’t use my cover idea:

The 99ers’ adversary — the one percent — were also under consideration for Person of the Year, but since some of the one percent were choosing the winner it was deemed to be a conflict of interest.

Update: Ed Driscoll has a similar Time cover here.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

We’ve had some fun with Al Sharpton, from “resist we much” to the blueberry pie promo, and last night Saturday Night Live got in on the action:

The IRS still isn’t laughing.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

People make honest mistakes. When right-leaning people make them, Soros-funded Media Matters turns it into Apocalypse Now and an opportunity to discredit all of conservatism.

But when liberal journos err, it’s like the proverbial trees falling in the forest. Does anybody hear the muffled sound?

Last night while I was on Twitter, a few left-leaning reporters fell for a hoax SEIU press release announcing the withdrawal of the union’s endorsement of Barack Obama. The timing alone — midnight-ish — should have raised eyebrows. But Marc Ambinder of the The Atlantic (who called it a “symbolic shot across the bow”) and Kenneth Vogel of Politico (who has erased his tweets about it) fell for the prank before being cautioned by Ben Smith of Politico, who quickly debunked the bogus statement. Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times also was targeted.

I asked those involved last night who they thought was responsible. My tweets were like trees in their forest. No replies.

Roll Call reports on the story this morning without mentioning who got punked:

A prankster sent reporters a fake press release Tuesday night claiming that members of the powerful Service Employees International Union had voted to take back the group’s endorsement of President Barack Obama.

The release hit inboxes just before midnight bearing the name of SEIU spokesman Mark McCullough. It included a fake quote from SEIU President Mary Kay Henry that claimed Obama hadn’t delivered enough change.

“Someone is playing a prank and using my email address,” the real McCullough told Talking Points Memo early this morning. He later issued a statement affirming the union’s support for the president.

Talking Points Memo also makes no mention of those reeled in. Lib media membership has its privileges.

SEIU’s real statement re-endorsing Dear Leader in response to the kerfuffle is here:

So just to be clear:

We stand by our November 16, 2011 endorsement of President Obama as part of a broader ’99 percent’ strategy to create good jobs now, end devastating cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and require everyone to pay their fair share.

Any reports to the contrary are simply false.

As those who have followed my coverage of SEIU and Obama for the past several years, it is inconceivable that one would disown the other. Ever. They’re stuck like glue.

But like I said: People make honest mistakes. In the end, the lightning-quick, self-correcting mechanism on Twitter worked as it should. This is the beauty of crowd-sourcing.

My question for journos on the lib side of the aisle, though: Why does it only redound to the benefit of lefties?

Something to dwell on the next time they’re tempted to hound and mock conservative bloggers, Breitbart, Fox, etc., as not “real” journalists.

At first I thought his complaint might have something to do with the scene that you can only see in the director’s cut where the Abominable Snow Monster took Hermey’s dental school lunch money and gave him an atomic wedgie while Yukon Cornelius laughed until icicles came out his nose, but instead, the apparent problem is with Santa himself.

As it turns out, St. Nick is no saint:

Santa Claus doesn’t just drop off presents for kids — he also encourages the soul-crushing of generation after generation of Christmas-reveling children. Or says one author, at least.

Appearing on Fox News, author and special ed professor George Giuliani asserted that St. Nick’s behavior in the classic stop motion cartoon, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” is tantamount to bullying, and sends a wrong message to children watching the family favorite. As such, he’s written a new book, “No More Bullies at the North Pole,” which re-tells the story of the triumphant reindeer.

“Santa has ten policies that are very unfair, and Mrs. Claus sets out to correct those policies, and what you just saw, where Rudolph is being treated very very badly, and that should never happen,” Guiliani said.

Appropriate to the occasion, the person providing the rebuttal is a comedian:

And don’t even get him started on the Easter Bunny.

A revised version of Rudolph will address some of the professor’s environmental concerns:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

I’d rather see Trump moderate a vice-presidential debate just to see if The Donald’s hair converging in the same room with Biden’s hair would open up some sort of bad-thatch wormhole in the universe, but hey, this is a start:

Donald Trump is pairing up with Newsmax, the conservative magazine and news Web site, to moderate a presidential debate in Des Moines on Dec. 27.

“Our readers and the grass roots really love Trump,” said Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of Newsmax Media. “They may not agree with him on everything, but they don’t see him as owned by the Washington establishment, the media establishment.”

Mr. Trump’s role in the debate, which will be broadcast on the cable network Ion Television, is sure to be one of the more memorable moments in a primary season that has already delivered its fair share of circus-like spectacle.

Trump might do a great job of spotting and calling out the Republican flip-floppers, since nobody flip-flops like The Donald.

I can’t picture Trump moderating a debate without becoming a participant in it, but Scott Pelley proved that you can do just that and somehow still maintain the title of objective moderator, so have at it, Donald!

In my mind, the winner of this debate will be the candidate who can avoid making the obvious “you’re fired” reference the longest.

And look, there’s already a “Moderator Trump” Twitter handle. That didn’t take long.

By the way, Jon Huntsman will sit this one out.

Somewhat related: Mitt Romney declines a Lincoln-Douglas style debate against Newt Gingrich.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

The New Hampshire primary is set for January 10th, and the RCP poll average has Mitt Romney with around a 20 point lead over Newt Gingrich. It’s unclear what impact if any the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt will have on those numbers, but it is apparent that the paper doesn’t care for Mitt Romney. In 2008 the Leader endorsed John McCain, and this time around Romney once again wasn’t among the finalists:

The New Hampshire Union Leader, a powerful voice in the early-voting state, endorsed Newt Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary Sunday, saying the nation needs his “innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership.”

The newspaper’s endorsement is among the most coveted in the state. The relatively early support — six weeks before the state’s primary — could threaten what has been a consistent, comfortable lead for Mitt Romney.

Romney is unmentioned in the paper’s front-page endorsement. But, the board writes, readers know “that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers.”

The other finalist for the endorsement was Rick Perry.

The endorsement is a nice pickup for Gingrich, but it doesn’t exactly guarantee him a primary win:

The Union Leader’s endorsement while coveted and influential has not always translated into a victory in the Granite State. The paper endorsed Ronald Reagan for the 1976 GOP primary, yet saw then-President Gerald Ford win. In 1980, the paper backed Reagan again who went on to win the primary and his party’s nomination.

In 1988, however, the paper backed Pete du Pont who fell to George H.W. Bush in the primary. Pat Buchanan won the board’s support in 1992, but failed in his challenge to then-President Bush, eventually winning with the paper’s backing in 1996.

In 2000, the paper backed businessman Steve Forbes who would lose the primary to Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The New Hampshire Union Leader isn’t the only high-profile praise Newt has received in the past few days:

“He’s articulate and he tries to think of a conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem,” Clinton said, by way of explaining the Gingrich resurgence. “For example, I watched the national security debate last night. And Newt said two things that would make an independent voter say, ‘Well, I gotta consider that.’”

And one of those two things that Bill Clinton said would make independent voters say “I gotta consider that” is something that might make conservatives say “Whoa!”. Click the pic to roll tape:

Update: Jonah Goldberg: Congrats, Newt, and don’t get cocky.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Remember when Hillary Clinton was a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and when she came out the band played Carrie Underwood’s “Before He Cheats”? Me neither, because it never happened and won’t ever happen. But the rules of what’s appropriate aren’t politically uniform in the world of “entertainment,” which is why Michele Bachmann is now wanting an apology from NBC:

Republican candidate Michele Bachmann addressed the controversy surrounding her appearance on ‘Late Night With Jimmy Fallon’ this week, saying if what happened to her had happened to the First Lady, heads would have rolled.

When Bachmann was introduced on the Fallon’s show Monday, Fallon’s house band, the Roots, played Fishbone’s song ‘Lyin’ Ass Bitch.’

Fallon has since apologized, and while Bachmann said she accepts the comedian’s apology, she thinks NBC should apologize as well.

“If that had been Michelle Obama, who’d come out on the stage, and if that song had been played for Michelle Obama, I have no doubt that NBC would have apologized to her and likely they would have fired the drummer, or at least suspended him,” she told Fox News.

If Fallon’s band had done that to Michelle Obama (as if), is there much doubt that Brian Roberts would have seen to public floggings of all offending parties and apologized by asking Comcast/NBC employees to double their DNC donations this election cycle?

Imagine the outrage if it was another guest. Below I took an ABC News story and replaced “Michele Bachmann” with the name of a different public figure:
*****

The drummer for the house band on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” apologized sort of for his decision to play ”Lyin’ Ass Bitch” when Rep. Nancy Pelosi appeared on the talk show Monday night.

Though the lyrics refer to a woman as a “slut trash can bitch,” the band sang the “la, la, la” of the refrain.
*****

Fallon’s house band would be lucky to be able to get a gig leading an OWS drum circle by now if it had happened that way.

Possible topic for discussion: Are GOP politicians chumps for going on these shows and subjecting themselves to mockery — be it overt or relatively subliminal — from an industry that is overwhelmingly liberal, or is it a necessary way to reach voters these days and they just need to have a thick skin, a thorough knowledge of contemporary “music” and a healthy repertoire of comeback lines at the ready?

Update, Thursday 8 p.m. EST: NBC apologizes.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Al Sharpton has a new “Lean Forward” promo for MSNBC in which he explains how Republicans have ruined the economy and deny the obvious. President Obama’s “car in a ditch” analogy was too technical for non-economists to follow, so here Sharpton simplifies it in terms of blueberry pie:

Hard to believe MSNBC is having so much trouble catching up in the ratings.

Here’s a video of some young Republicans in training.

Speaking of pie, we’re on pins and needles at my place. We’re hosting dinner tomorrow and haven’t yet received this year’s official pie waiver from FLOTUS. As a result, what, if anything, is for dessert is still totally up in the air.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Newt Gingrich might have said the worst thing a presidential candidate has ever said. Judging from the reaction of MSNBC’s Mika Brezinski he might have, anyway.

What was the offending Newt Gingrich comment? Gingrich advised “Occupy Wall Street” protesters to “get a job right after you take a bath.” Horror, disgust and crawling skin ensued:

BRZEZINSKI: Someone needs a bath, and I don’t think it’s the people from Occupy Wall Street. That’s all I’m going to say. I’ve got nothing else. I’m so disgusted by that that something horrible is going to come… I, I, am I alone here? Am I over-reacting [note quavering voice]? I’m sickened by that… It’s fair to say he’s in the 1%, correct? He’s telling the 99% to take a bath and get a job? Really? Really, I wonder how they do that right now. How, given the state of this country, how anyone’s going to just get a job and take a bath. Who is this man? Who does he think he is? And why is he surging in the polls? I don’t get it. I mean,to hear Newt Gingrich standing on literally his high horse, after taking advantage of the system, cashing in, being the biggest, literally the biggest hypocrite in the Repubican field, probably in politics today. The biggest hypocrite. And then to cast aspersions and to speak down to these people as if–plghhh–they should be flipped away? It’s disgusting. It’s absolutely disgusting. It’s a very angry way to start the show. I’m extremely sorry. But it’s the first time I’d seen that. And it literally made my skin crawl. I can’t believe he resonates.

Video by way of Newsbusters:

Sure, Gingrich might have generalized just a little bit. Some OWSers do have good jobs and ready access to showers — the anti-Gekkos fighting back against Wall Street from rooms at the W Hotel for example.

But if I was in charge of Newt’s campaign I’d run with it anyway:

I’d also suggest an updated Gingrich campaign theme song:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Probably the most talked about exchange from Saturday night’s GOP debate was the Newt Gingrich/Scott Pelley back and forth regarding the sanctioned killing of American born terrorists overseas (the least talked about portion of the debate was the second hour, because not many people could watch it).

Here’s video of the exchange in case you missed it (h/t Newsbusters):

Since Pelley was so eager to participate, Gingrich could have also posed one question on Pelley’s assumption the terrorist killings were against the rule of law: “Are you asking me if President Obama should be charged with a crime?”

CBS missed the real story here: Some GOP candidates for president agree with Barack Obama on something. The MSM finally gets the “bipartisanship” they often report is so hard to find, and all that the anchor of the CBS Evening News can do is lean forward and offer a healthy dose of smug:

In Pelley’s defense, he might have had that look on his face because of all the potential questions for Michele Bachmann he had to keep bottled up.

(Picture and coinage of the term “smug shot” via The Right Scoop)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe