Steve King: Democrats Will Win Over Hispanics By Giving Them ‘A Great Big Check’

By Jeff Spross/Think Progress

Since President Obama’s re-election and Mitt Romney’s poor performance among Hispanic voters, a number of prominent conservative lawmakers and commentators have come out in favor of immigration reform. But Rep. Steve King (R-IA) appears to have not gotten the memo, if his first comments on immigration since the election are any indication.

Echoing Mitt Romney’s now-infamouscomplaint that Obama won by handing out “gifts” to women and minorities, King toldradio host Janet Mefferd yesterday that Republicans should not fixate on winning back the Hispanic vote because Democrats can always counter offer with “a great big check.” Right Wing Watch and Huffington Post’s Nick Wing picked up the exchange:

JANET MEFFERD: How in the world do you out-left the left anyway? If we go to the left on amnesty, do you think the Democrats are going to sit still and just go ‘oh I guess that they’re more caring than we are’? It’s a zero-sum game. I don’t know how in the world the Republicans expect to get votes when the Democrats are already farther along than we are.

STEVE KING: There’s no possible way. Whatever we might say we are going to do, reduce the enforcement of the rule of law, waive the rule of law,Democrats will find a way to hand deliver citizenship papers along with a great big check from money borrowed from the Chinese.

King has already amassed quite the record of derogatory comments towards hispanic immigrants, suggesting failure to pass voter ID laws would “turn this country” over to undocumented immigrants, and once analogizing immigrants to birddogs — then later claimingthe latter was a compliment. King has also threatened to sue President Obama for his executive policy forgoing deportation for the 1.4 million young immigrants who would be eligible for the DREAM Act.

King closed out the discussion of the Republicans’ relation to Hispanics by lamenting that “the election really was about expanding the dependency class in america. More americans voted fore dependency, less voted for personal responsibility. And you don’t beat Santa Clause with amnesty.”

The GOP Doesn't Have A Mitt Romney Problem, It Has A Fox News Problem

ERIC BOEHLERT/media matters for America

Poor Mitt Romney has become a Republican punching bag as leaders within the party denounce his post-election comments about how President Obama won re-election by promising government-funded "gifts" to minority groups and young voters. As Republicans jab Romney though, they're missing the larger, more pressing point: They don't have a Mitt Romney problem. They have a Fox News problem.

Romney's "gifts" put-down echoed the infamous claim Romney made during the campaign that 47 percent of Americans see themselves as "victims" and are overly dependent on the government. With the campaign concluded, lots of fellow Republicans now feel  free to bash Romney:

• "It's nuts," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

• "I absolutely reject what he said," announced Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

• "When you're in a hole, stop digging. He keeps digging," complained Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Though prominent conservatives are now lashing out at the former presidential candidate, the truth is Fox News has loudly championed the divisive philosophy behind Romney's "47 percent" and "gifts" comments for months and practically authored them for the Republican candidate. Last week Fox talkers cheeredRomney's "gifts" post-election critique, treating it as a universal truth. (According to Fox Business host Stuart Varney, Obama was "buying votes with taxpayer money. Handouts all over the place.")

And it's not just a Fox News problem. Republicans have an even more expansive right-wing media problem (television, radio, Internet, etc.), which now doubles as the face and voice of the GOP and which celebratesthe kind of toxic "47 percent" and "gifts" rhetoric that's being condemned within the party. The far-right press is convinced Obama won re-election by "offering" voters a "check" in exchange for their support.

As Media Matters noted:

Fox host Bill O'Reilly said that voters feel economic anxiety and just "want stuff," while Fox host Eric Bolling said Obama is a "maker versus taker guy." Fox contributor Monica Crowley said that the election showed that "more people now are dependent on government than not." Rush Limbaugh compared the president to Santa Claus, saying that "small things beat big things" in the election and "people are not going to vote against Santa Claus."

In fact, O'Reilly and Limbaugh rushed to take credit for Romney's "gifts" comments last week, since both of them had been pushing the "maker vs. taker" narrative in the wake of Romney's election loss.

The split over Romney's "gifts" remark highlights the larger divide within the conservative movement between two distinct camps: activists and politicians who want to get more Republicans elected vs. right-wing media players who want to grow their audience.

Note that after the Republican flop on Election Day, talk radio's Laura Ingraham dismissed conservative hand-wringers who worried about the political future by stressing that "talk radio continues to thrive while moderate Republicans like John McCain and to some extent Mitt Romney continue to lose presidential elections." That's how hosts like Ingraham view the political landscape. That's how they determine success and failure, not by tallying the wins and losses posted by Republicans candidates, but by counting up the number of radio stations that carry their syndicated show.

The same is true with Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson. Asked why the conservative media completely failed in their attempt to "vet" Obama, who easily won re-election despite four years of hysterical, far-right claims about him, Carlson told BuzzFeed his publication's work had been a success because traffic to the site was up. (Carlson also blamed the "legacy media" for being hostile to his site's supposed "journalism.")

I'm sure that's comforting news to RNC leadership. And I'm sure the Daily Caller chasing inane, anti-Obama conspiracy theories for the next four years will put the Republican Party on firm footing for 2016.

For now, it's easy to blame Romney. That's what losing parties often do after an election, they pile-on the vanquished candidate. The part that would take some guts and fortitude would be calling out the right-wing media that are generating the type of hate rhetoric that Romney embraced and routinely used during the campaign.  

Republicans won't because they're intimidated by the right-wing media's power. That's why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie quickly got on the phone with Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch after Murdochtweeted that Christie, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and his bipartisan appearances with Obama, needed to re-endorse Romney or "take the blame" for the president's re-election.  

Murdoch: Jump! Republicans: How high?

That unhealthy relationship is the reason why, when it comes to the simple question of whether America is divided between "makers and takers," and if the 62 million Americans who voted for Obama represent a decaying nation of moochers in search of handouts, there's a wide gulf within the conservative movement. The right-wing media consider the claim to be a central tenet, while Republican leaders think saying it out loud is completely batty and a prescription for an electoral losing streak.

So yes, those are conspicuous handcuffs the GOP is wearing: Fox News has hijacked the party's communications apparatus and is pushing the type of paranoid, blame-the-voter rhetoric that loses elections, and the type of rhetoric Romney's now being blamed for. But the GOP can't turn it off. In fact, most Republicans can't even work up enough courage to ask Fox News to turn down the volume.

Unwilling to acknowledge the GOP's future poses a long-term media problem (the topic is not to be discussed), Republicans pretend they have a short-term Romney one.

Right taking wrong lessons from Romney's defeat

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Allen West, Republican Congressman From Florida, Concedes 2 Weeks After The Election

By MATT SEDENSKY/Huffington Post

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Tea party firebrand Rep. Allen West conceded his re-election fight Tuesday, two weeks after the vote gave way to court appearances, two partial recounts and unending accusations by his camp that the vote count wasn't fair.

"There are certainly still inaccuracies in the results" but not enough to change the outcome, the Republican freshman said in a statement conceding the race to Democratic newcomer Patrick Murphy.

"While a contest of the election results might have changed the vote totals, we do not have evidence that the outcome would change," West added.

Murphy campaign manager Anthony Kusich said he was not aware of any concession call to his candidate, simply an email that was publicly distributed.

In his own statement, Murphy said he was "humbled by Congressman West's gracious concession" and eager to get to work on behalf of all voters.

"To those who supported my opponent, my door is open and I want to hear your voice," Murphy said. "I campaigned on a message of reaching across the aisle to get things done for the people of the Treasure Coast and Palm Beaches, and that is as important in this district as it is in Washington."

Murphy declared victory hours after the vote, even as thousands of absentee, provisional and overseas ballots were processed and two partial recounts undertaken. But West's campaign remained skeptical of the results, largely in St. Lucie County, where elections officials acknowledged missteps.

An initial recount of some early ballots in St. Lucie gave West a slight bump. His campaign fought for a fuller recount, and received it, but it only improved Murphy's margin of victory. St. Lucie's final tally ultimately was discarded because it didn't meet a state deadline. Numbers certified by the state Tuesday give Murphy the win by 1,904 votes.

Many have speculated West could find a new career in the place where he has been frequently seen, on cable television, but he has not said what his next step will be. "Only God knows what is in store for each of us," he said in his statement, adding, "I will continue to fight for our republic."

Whatever the next step, the contest between Murphy and West will go down as one of the most expensive in congressional history. Murphy eked out the win though he was out-fundraised more than 4-to-1.

West, 51, is a favorite among the most conservative reaches of the Republican Party. He has made a string of headline-grabbing statements, from calling a majority of congressional Democrats communists to saying President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and others should "get the hell out of the United States."

Murphy, 29, portrayed West as an extremist who had done little else in Washington than stoke partisan fires.

In his concession statement, West offered congratulations to Murphy, saying "I pray he will serve his constituents with honor and integrity, and put the interests of our nation before his own."

Michigan Republicans consider tax breaks for fetuses

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Michigan Republicans held a hearing Tuesday to consider two bills that would offer tax breaks to any woman carrying a fetus that’s more than 12 weeks old.

Proposed by State Rep. Lisa Posthumous Lyons (R), House Bills 5684 and 5685 aim to allow women to claim their gestating fetus as a dependent on their taxes.

Qualified taxpayers would be able to claim that about $4,000 of their income is tax exempt. A report (PDF) by Michigan’s nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency estimated that the exemption would cost between $5 million to $10 million per year.

Despite Democratic gains across the country on Election Day, Michigan remains in Republican control, meaning it’s possible that these bills could pass. The American Civil Liberties Union cited Michigan last year as one of the leading states for Republicans seeking to curb reproductive rights.

Democrats made Michigan into a key front in their “war on women” campaign after a female lawmaker was banned from speaking over her use of the word “vagina” during a debate on a bill that would have banned abortions throughout the state. Partially as a result of high voter turnout among women, Michigan reelected President Barack Obama by a wide margin and sent. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) back to Congress.

Despite its potential, Rep. Lyons’ proposed reforms could make for an interesting bit of contrast in the next election season: Michigan Republicans voted in favor of a package of tax reforms last session that eliminated a $600 per-child tax credit for working poor families, replacing it with a credit of just $25.

Cory Booker challenges tea partier to live on food stamps for a week

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Over the weekend, Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker (D) challenged a tea party-affiliated critic to join him in living on food stamps for a week, and now it appears the challenge has been accepted.

The challenge was prompted by a tweet on Sunday from Twitter user @MWadeNC, whose bio reads: “Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR), fighting against any and all forms of socialism/communism.. Army Veteran, Army Daughter, Army Wife.”

Booker had touched off a Twitter argument by quoting the Greek historian Plutarch, who wrote that “an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”

That quote, he explained, underpins an argument for public investment in education and nutrition, which he said would save money on police and prisons. That’s when @MWadeNC chimed in, saying ”nutrition is not a responsibility of the government.”

“Lets you and I try to live on food stamps in New Jersey (high cost of living) and feed a family for a week or month,” Booker wrote. “U game?”

The critic accepted. “Great,” Booker replied. “Lets do this. I hope you live in New Jersey. Lets film it and see how we do.” Several other respondents offered to referee the challenge, and Booker appeared to welcome their assistance.

He followed up again on Tuesday, responding to another user who asked if he’s really prepared to participate in the challenge. “Yes preparing 2 if my challenge is truly accepted,” Booker wrote.

The U.S. Department of Labor says that more than 46 million Americans receive nutrition assistance. Mayor Booker was unavailable for comment early Tuesday.

O’Reilly: Black Voters Don’t Believe In ‘Self Reliance’ Or ‘American Exceptionalism’

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Since the night of the election, Bill O’Reilly has been looking for a scapegoat on whom he can blame Mitt Romney’s loss. He seems to have found one in African American, Latino, and female voters.

Before all the votes were even cast on November 6, O’Reilly came out with the theory that “The white establishment is now the minority,” and that women, black, and Latino voters are “non-traditional” voters who “feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”

On his show last night, O’Reilly responded to comedian Jon Stewart’s criticism that mourning “traditional voters” is latent racism. But in his rebuttal, O’Reilly explained that the mass turnout of voters of color signaled an end to “traditional American voters.” The new voters, he argued, don’t understand “traditional American values”:

If you look at the exit polling, you’ll see that a coalition of voters put the President back into the oval office. That coalition was non-tradition, which means it veered away from things like traditional marriage, robust capitalism, and self reliance. Instead, each constituency that voted for the President —whether it be single women, Hispanic Americans, African Americans, whatever— had very specific reasons for doing so. [...]

Traditional American voters generally want a smaller government in Washington, more local control, some oversight on abortion, and believe in American exceptionalism.

Watch it:

O’Reilly isn’t new to making racially charged comments. Just days before the election, he speculated that Sec. of State Colin Powell cut Obama “a little more slack” in his endorsement of him because they are both black. He’s also claimed that Democrats have made black people “dependent” on the government.

GOP’s Benghazi Conspiracy Falls Apart: White House Didn’t Change Susan Rice’s Talking Points

By Hamed Aleaziz/Think Progress

Intelligence officials told CNN that the intelligence community, not the White House, changed the now infamous Benghazi talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her appearance on several morning news shows in September. CNN quoted both the spokesperson for the Director of National Intelligence and an anonymous official “familiar with the drafting of the talking points.” The DNI spokesperson said that the only “substantive changes” came from the intelligence community and not the White House.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers in a closed door hearing last week that the CIA’s original assessment on the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was that it was carried out by al Qaeda affiliated groups. But he reportedly said that analysis was later taken out after an interagency review in favor of a more general assessment that “extremists” carried out the attack to broaden the scope and not tip off terrorists to U.S. knowledge on the matter. And despite the fact that Petraeus said the CIA approved the change, Republicans, led by Republican senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH), have accused the White House of stripping the language for political reasons.

But Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence, told CNN that it wasn’t the White House’s decision:

“The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback.There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community.”

Another anonymous intelligence official echoed Turner, saying that the changes were made based on legitimate intelligence and for legal purposes:

“First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources. Second, when links were so tenuous – as they still are – itmakes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don’t set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages.”

Indeed, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the New York Times last week that in his closed door briefing, Petraeus “was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda.”

The fight over the talking points will most likely continue; it has even become a campaign cause for Republican senators like Lindsey Graham. Others like John McCain have vowed to do “everything” to block the potential nomination of Susan Rice for Secretary of State. But Democrats in Congress and media commentators are beginning to wonder why Republicans are picking a substance-free fight with Rice, a woman and an African-American, after the drubbing they took in last month’s elections among those demographics.

CNN Confronts Walmart Spokesperson Over Retailer’s Low Wages, Poor Working Conditions

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

As Walmart workers across the country coordinate a Black Friday walkout in an effort to build awareness about the national retailer’s low wages and poor working conditions, the company is on a media offensive to downplay their associates’ concerns and reassure shoppers.

During an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning, Vice President of Communications David Tovar sought to brush aside the fact that Walmart is paying its associates salaries that are just slightly above the poverty line, even as the company reported a 9 percent increase in third-quarter net income, earning $3.63 billion. He insisted that the company has “got great associates” who are “going to do a great job for us this holiday season.”

But when host Carol Costello pressed Tovar on the growing wealth gap in America and Walmart’s role in insuring a robust middle class, he dodged the question, but not before suggesting that the store offers associates a discount to buy Walmart products (and invest their pay checks back into the company):

COSTELLO: The wage gap in this country continues to grow ever wider. you know, we hear from economists all the time, we need a strong middle class to make our overall economy stronger. Is it Walmart’s responsibility to make sure that its employees can support a strong middle-class lifestyle?

TOVAR: We’re working hard every day to provide more opportunities for associates. [...]

COSTELLO: But if a lot of them are making $15,000 a year, you can’t live a strong middle-class lifestyle on that. You just can’t. [...]

TOVAR: Our average rate is about $12.40 an hour far a full time associate. We also offer comprehensive benefit packages as low as $17 a pay period, which is very affordable and we also pay quaterly bonuses, which is something that not a lot of retailers do…. And we know that they appreciate that, they also get a 10 percent discount card. So you have to factor in all of those things when you’re looking for how we’re helping associates.

Watch it:

Walmart CEO Michael Duke has a total compensation of $18.1 million, and is the second highest paid executive in the Fortune 500. According to CNN Money, it would take more than 700 employees’ salaries to match his total compensation package.

Making Change at Walmart, the group leading Black Friday’s protest, is asking for a minimum wage of $13 an hour, more full time positions and affordable health care. Currently, the typical employee is paid $22,100 a year, slightly below the federal poverty line for a family of four (which is at $23,050 in 2012). Walmart earned $15 billion last year.

Republican Poll Worker Complains About High Turnout Among ‘People Of Color’

By Adam Peck/Think Progress

On Thursday, the head of the Maine Republican Party found himself on the wrong side of controversy after he questioned the legitimacy of “dozens” of black people voting at the polls on Election Day. “Nobody in town knows anyone who’s black,” Charlie Webster — who has since apologized for his comments — declared.

Such faulty logic is more widespread throughout the Republican party, it seems. Racial justice news site ColorLines published a video the day after the election of a self-identified Republican poll worker in Colorado who can be heard phoning in his concerns that “a very high concentration of people of color” were turning out in his precinct, and that such turnout was suspicious because he normally sees fewer minorities “at the mall”:

“Yeah, a very high concentration of people of color. It’s not a problem, but, you know, when I go to the mall I see, you know this amount. Well I’m seeing at least double or triple that amount here. So what I’m saying is, it looks to me like this voting location was selected as the place they told everyone to come.”

Watch it:

As with Webster, the poll worker, identified by Color Lines as Dayton Conway, offers no evidence of any foul play at all other than his gut feeling that there were more minorities at his polling location than he normally sees at the mall. Conway perhaps failed to note that his polling location — the Arapahoe County CentrePoint Plaza in Aurora, Colorado — was one of 32 designated voting centers where voters who are registered anywhere in Arapahoe County could cast their ballots, meaning the turnout there might not be reflective of the precinct’s actual demographics.

Sadly, Conway’s instinctual suspicion of minority voters is something of a trend for Republicans this year. After the election, Rep. Paul Ryan blamed “urban voters” for costing him the vice presidency, while Mitt Romney argued that Obama won reelection by doling out “gifts” like health care, affordable education and food to minority groups and the impoverished.

Hostess Blames Union For Bankruptcy After Tripling CEO’s Pay

By Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress

Today, Hostess Brands inc. — the company famed for its sickly sweet desert snacks like Twinkies and Sno Balls — announced they’d be shuttering after more than eighty years of production.

But while headlines have been quick to blame unions for the downfall of the company there’s actually more to the story: While the company was filing for bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its CEO’s pay, and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent.

At the time, creditors warned that the decision signaled an attempt to “sidestep” bankruptcy rules, potentially as a means for trying to keep the executive at a failing company. The Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union pointed this out in their written reaction to the news that the business is closing:

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Certainly, the company agreed to an out-sized pension debt, but the decision to pay executives more while scorning employee contracts during a bankruptcy reflects a lack of good managerial judgement.

It also follows a trend of rising CEO pay in times of economic difficulty. At the manufacturing company Caterpillar, for example, they froze workers’ pay while boosting their CEO’s pay to $17 million. And at Citigroup, CEO Vikram Pandit received $6.7 million for crashing his company, walking off with $260 million after the business lost 88 percent of its value.

GOP Rep Admits CIA Approved U.N. Ambassador’s Talking Points On Libya

By Hayes Brown/Think Progress

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has admitted that the CIA and intelligence community approved U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s talking points before she made her much-derided Sept. 16 appearance on several Sunday news shows to discuss the attacks in Benghazi. King, one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack, came to his conclusion following testimony from former CIA Director David Petraeus.

After leaving the closed-door hearing, King spoke with reporters for several minutes about Petraeus’ statements. Rice’s television appearances were among the topics discussed, leading King to indicate that while Petraeus did not personally write Rice’s talking points, the CIA did approve them:

Q: Did he say why it was taken out of the talking points that [the attack] was Al Qaeda affiliated?

KING: He didn’t know.

Q: He didn’t know? What do you mean he didn’t know?

KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report –

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

Watch King’s statements here:

Rice has been hit by Republicans for weeks for indicating that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi stemmed from a spontaneous protest related to an anti-Islamic video. However, as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has pointed out, the talking points used by Rice were the same unclassified points given to both the administration and Congress by the intelligence community.

Contrary to the current GOP narrative, Petraeus’ testimony made clear that various intelligence sources at of the time of his initial briefing to Congress indicated that a protest arising in response to a similar one in Cairo was the impetus for the attack in Libya. While those initial assessments were later disproved, the Wall Street Journal has previously reported that this change in thinking began too late to alter Rice’s talking points.

Today’s comments by King towards the intelligence community’s assessments also mark a sharp departure from his previous accusations that Rice should have known sooner that the intelligence that was presented to her was incorrect. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have both also recently said that Rice should “have known better” than to make the statements she did during her interviews.

Do Conservative Pundits Ever Have To Be Right?

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters for America

Conservative hand-wringing in the wake of President Obama's victory continues unabated, with both voters and strategists venting their frustration about the GOP's loss, while condemning the conservative media forleading followers to believe a GOP victory was imminent. (A landslide!)

Instead of being honest down the homestretch, conservative pundits on Fox News and at places like the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post fed Republicans a steady diet of falsehoods and Pollyannaish analysis that ran counter to the clear polling data about the state of the race.

Some Republican leaders are now promoting wholesale changes. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal urged Republicans to "stop being the party of stupid" and to reject the anti-intellectualism that has often defined the political movement. "We've also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism," hetold Politico.

But "dumbed-down conservatism" is what drives the GOP Noise Machine. It's what Fox, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media have been pushing for years and posting healthy profits in the process. If there's going to be widespread change within the conservative movement it's going to have to include the right-wing media. And for that to happen, accountability has to be finally introduced into the equation.

Currently it's a foreign notion among many commentators who boast dubious track records of being chronically incorrect. Early indications are that most conservative pundits won't face recriminations from within the GOP Noise Machine for getting everything wrong about the campaign.  But will consumers finally revolt?

Note that last week CNBC's Larry Kudlow welcomed Romney loyalist Jennifer Rubin from the Washington Post onto his program two nights after Romney lost decisively. On the show there was no discussion about how all of Rubin's horse race insights had been monumentally wrong.

Kudlow politely declined to ask Rubin about her suggestion that Romney might win nearly all the battleground states. (He won just one, North Carolina.) And he also didn't discuss the revelation that Rubin had misled readers in real time about the status of the campaign. The conservative CNBC host, among those whoerroneously predicted a Romney blowout, politely demurred and accountability was ignored.

For weeks, if not months, Rubin's readers were led to believe the Obama campaign was crumbling and the incumbent was making one foolish move after another. After Obama won an electoral landslide, Rubin wasn't asked about her dreadfully erroneous spin. Neither was Kudlow's other guest, James Pethokoukis, a blogger from the American Enterprise Institute who forecast Romney would win 301 electoral votes. (Romney won 206.) 

Between the three of them, Kudlow, Rubin and Pethokoukis could not have been more wrong about the election; an election they allegedly studied intently all year long. And none of the three bothered to acknowledge their failings on CNBC that night.

The Weekly Standard's Jay Cost was another full-time campaign watcher who obsessively assured readers that Obama's chances were dim. Casting a critical eye towards polling, Cost presented his "interpretation" of what was happening in the campaign: There was no way voter turnout among Democrats and Republicans would look the same as it did in 2008.

It did.

Cost's explanation last week then, for why he got everything wrong about Obama vs. Romney? Answer: The Obama campaign "played to its base with a level of intensity rarely seen in the modern era." (Whatever that means.) And Cost was surprised that it worked. 

Here's the real punch line, though, and here's why the conservative media have dug themselves such a deep, insular hole: Two days after Cost got everything wrong about the campaign, James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal linked to Cost's post-election column and urged people to read Cost's deep insights about the campaign. (Surprise! Taranto loved Cost's piece about how the Romney defeat did not represent a serious set back for the GOP.)

So Cost's penalty for completely misjudging the election was to be touted as a sharp thinker by the Wall Street Journal. The point being, within the GOP media bubble there's no price for having been consistently wrong about the campaign. There's no shame in announcing all the polls are wrong (biased!), and that Romney was surging to an easy win, even though both claims were pure fantasy.

That no-harm/no-foul rule also extends to the mainstream media. Five days after Romney's defeat, Face the Nation invited Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan to pontificate about the campaign. It was an interesting choice considering Noonan had botched the election, insisting the day before the vote that Romney was marching to victory over the "small and lost" Obama campaign. 

Uninterested in polling data, Noonan sensed Romney's looming victory because "all the vibrations" were right. Plus, she saw more Romney/Ryan yard signs while out traveling in Florida.

I realize Noonan is not a data-miner and her writing style is more impressionistic. But she works for the largest newspaper in America and her (erroneous) election-eve analysis came down to "vibrations" and lawn signs? That's just embarrassing.

Noonan appears to be in no danger of having her reputation dinged by the media, though. What about angry conservative media consumers?  Will they penalize any of the sites and pundits who emphatically misled readers, listeners and viewers about the state of the race?

Historically, there's little evidence of right-wing media outlets losing their audience in the wake of getting stories wrong, even getting them spectacularly wrong. There seems to be an almost tacit understanding among conservative news consumers that the GOP Noise Machine tells them what they want to hear about how crooked and un-American Democrats are. And that even if the stories don't hold up to scrutiny, consumers remain loyal.

But last week's election results seemed especially traumatic for Republican voters, so it's possible there could be fall out.

The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky highlighted this angry comment posted by a dedicated RedState reader [emphasis added]:

The simple fact is that in the run-up to this election, we were fed a steady diet of lies, from all our "loyal" sources. We need to hold not only the Romney campaign accountable, but also the conservative press (specifically the Murdoch press - Fox was the worst of the bunch), and the establishment talking heads like Karl Rove and Peggy Noonan. We need to get clear about something: these people are selling us a product. They have been taking our money and telling us bedtime stories. We complain about the MSM, but can we honestly say that the conservative press has been more honest?

Writing a scathing critique of the right-wing media's debacle, The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf  noted that in covering the election, the biggest news story of the year, "the conservative media just got its ass handed to it by the mainstream media."

Indeed it did. And unless people start demanding some much-needed accountability from the GOP Noise Machine, the conservative drubbings will continue.