Brent Bozell’s Amusing Conspiracy Theory


Brent Bozell is the director of the Media Research Center, a right-wing group that thinks the media is terribly biased against them. He has a new book out that claims that the media stole the 2012 election for Obama by not reporting that he smoked pot as a kid. I’m not making this up:

Mefferd: You’re not allowed to touch those on the left; you’re not allowed to dig into the past of Barack Obama and expose what little was exposed before 2008. And it just ramped up, didn’t it?

Bozell: You just pitched me a softball. What about the past? How should somebody’s past be covered? Well, we know about Mitt Romney, we know that because the Washington Post spent five thousand four hundred words of this, we know that had a dog on his roof. Everyone knows that story. Now why do we all know that story? Because it was reported endlessly because dogs on a roof are important to report.

Well, if dogs on a roof are important, what about dogs in your stomach? What about eating dogs? Is that important? Now, am I making a false accusation or a nefarious accusation about Barack Obama? No, I’m quoting him in his own book. He had said how he ate dog. How is that not newsworthy but leaving a dog on a roof is?

The Washington Post; five thousand four hundred words devoted to an essay on Mitt Romney’s youth and it all revolves around, remember, the haircut in 1965? We had to know that. So that’s the microcosm of Mitt Romney’s youth.

They then did a five thousand word essay on Obama’s youth, and it’s all about his love for basketball. He had a love for something else, Janet. It was called marijuana. He was a pothead. He was a member of the Choom Gang. What they did was they’d get stoned all the time. Is Brent making an outrageous accusation? No, it’s right in Barack Obama’s book.

Yep, Brent. That’s why Romney lost. Just keep telling yourself that.

Comments

  1. iknklast says

    If people didn’t know about those things, they weren’t reading the news, because it was actually reported.

    Besides, Clinton had already admitted to smoking pot, and Bush was also known to have been a substance abuser, so why would that make a difference? Oh, wait, Obama smoked pot WHILE BLACK. I forgot. Sorry.

  2. matty1 says

    The real scandal is the continuing belief by so many people that their or their friends drug use is a bit of harmless fun and experimenting but other people’s is a crime as bad as murder.

    War on Drugs for thee but not for me.

  3. Mr Ed says

    Just for the record it is 2013 not 1954, I know more adults who have smoked pot than those that haven’t. Mitt is the only person I’ve ever heard of who though -or didn’t think, that putting a dog on the roof for a long drive was a good idea. Having tried pot is mundane where putting a dog on top of a car is an indication of a sociopathic streak.

    How come these boot strappy, personal responsibility types spend so much effort blaming others?

  4. daniellavine says

    http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/

    There’s a difference between eating a dog that was raised as livestock and sticking an animal raised as part of the family on the roof of a car, of course. I suspect Bozell eats his share of pork, ham, and bacon which, given the intelligence of pigs, isn’t particularly different from eating dogs.

    As far as the pot smoking thing, I seem to recall some reporting around that during the campaign. Obama even had something to say about it:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/26/obama-yes-i-inhaled%E2%80%94that-was-the-point/

    Which is bizarre because I was pretty sure CNN was part of the liberal media conspiracy.

  5. says

    Brent Bozell is a perpetually hateful career crybaby who insists that Bush Jr’s presidency failed because of all the (unspecified) liberal initiatives he and the GOP leadership proposed. I kid you not. Here’s what I wrote about him back in 2008:

    http://motherwell.livejournal.com/98131.html

    The fact that this guy’s sheer hatefulness didn’t cause him to have a stroke, proves we’re not living in a just world.

  6. scienceavenger says

    Bozell no doubt thinks the dog-on-the-car episode and the eating-dog episode are equivalent simply because they both contain the word “dog”. That’s about the depth of his analysis.

  7. Synfandel says

    He had said how he ate dog. How is that not newsworthy but leaving a dog on a roof is?

    It is newsworthy. But let us note that one is eating what is considered livestock in certain cultures—humanely dispatched, we hope—and the other is making a beloved family pet suffer in terror.

  8. eric says

    we know that [Romney] had a dog on his roof.

    I didn’t know that. Its possible I heard it during the campaign, but if I did I must’ve dismissed it as irrelevant and then promptly forgotten about it. As rational people do. As I did for Obama’s earlier drug use.

    But please, tell me more about this liberal media bias. Complete this string of logic for me, Mr. Bozell:
    P1. The mainstream media has a liberal bias
    P2. Reality’s election results precisely matched what the mainstream media said would happen
    C.Ergo, reality…

  9. slc1 says

    Of course, Dubya also was a drunk and a coke snorter but that[‘s OK to a putz like Bozell because he was a Rethuglican, although they’re doing their best to pretend he never happened.

  10. Doug Little says

    Yes, because holding down a kid, calling him a queer and forcefully cutting his hair is exactly the same thing as smoking some pot? WTF??

  11. justsomeguy says

    So…. there was a concerted effort to hide information about Barack Obama that Barack Obama wrote in his bestselling book? My goodness, legerdemain of that magnitude would require the resources of the Illuminati AND the Masons!

  12. matty1 says

    @12 I just looked up the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, both organisations have published membership lists on their websites that do not include Michelle Obama. I realise you know this but I never cease to be amazed that people can push so hard for ideas that can be debunked in 30 seconds.

  13. anubisprime says

    matty1 @ 13

    I realise you know this but I never cease to be amazed that people can push so hard for ideas that can be debunked in 30 seconds.

    That is the basis of theism.
    It is also the modus operandi of dumb cretins like Beck…Palin…Barton…Bozell etc etc.

    The trade they make is that the audience they are trying to motivate are very unlikely to check any scandalous claim made against their collective hatred.
    If it is negative, as it invariably is, and confirms the innate bias it is true enough to bank, if it does not quite line up with their prejudice it is ignored or worse considered a conspiracy of the ‘enemy’ because there is no good points about them. or so they have been informed by their political guru’s and church clerics.

    And these folk never question either, cos they have not the mental capacity or the wish to swim against the current of their peers bigotry.

Leave a Reply