Kathleen McKinley's blog

The New York Times ignored the Politico story reporting that several sources had heard Vice President Joe Biden called the Tea Party backed lawmakers "terrorists." When the Vice President's office was contacted about the story they at first declined to comment. Then they put out at statement saying that the vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse. Which is not the same as denying he said it. Then, they finally came out and flatly denied it. 

Take a peek at this picture on CNN.com as of 2:30pm eastern time (fuller picture after break):

 

The following is a Twitter conversation I had with CNN's Roland S. Martin on Wednesday. He was upset at Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.) issuing a proclamation declaring it Confederate History Month in the commonwealth without mentioning slavery. He had retweeted Donna Brazile's tweet that she was outraged that the RNC hadn’t condemned McDonnell. Her Tweet said:  "RNC Chair should have condemned this statement,along with every GOP leader. But the double standards are so apparent with the media & blogs"And he doesn't like NewsBusters very much (discussion follows with my tweets in Italics):

There has been a lot of controversy over the Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother discussing how she chose life for her son.

The ad is a simple sincere look at a personal story. Yet the left and the "feminists" have gone nuts over it.

23 years ago, The American Life League, one of the largest Catholic Pro-Life organizations, produced a short featuring members of the Super Bowl winning New York Giants.

As you watch former superstars Phil Simms -- the game's MVP and current sportscaster for CBS! -- Mark Bavaro, Jim Burt, Chris Godfrey, George Martin, and Phil McConkey speak out against abortion, try to imagine what the reaction would be to this film if it was made today.

The roar from the left would be heard from outerspace (video embedded below the fold):

As Noel Sheppard pointed out in an earlier post at Newsbusters, Chris Matthews once again accuses the Tea Party goers of being too white:

"This is a largely white -- almost no minorities in this crowd," reported MSNBC's O'Donnell live from the scene.

Matthews reiterated, "Well, they look like a white crowd to me," later claiming, "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people."

Here are pics from the left's Code Pink's latest march on Washington D.C. I don't see ONE face of color. Go ahead and look through their photo stream back into the Bush years and the protests then. Still a sea of white faces. Here are a few anti war protest pics from that time when I pointed this out back in April.

Let's compare. Here are anti-war protests (I warn you, they may be overtly white, but they are also overtly weird). Here are the Tea Party Protests.

The left has gotten a lot of "giggles" over the term "teabaggers" in describing Americans who attend the tea parties. For those of you who don't know, teabagging is a perverse sexual term. It is interesting to me that the left not only knew the term, but seemed very comfortable using it. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

Those having the most fun have been CNN's Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and frequent guest pundit Ana Marie Cox. Last week I posted about tweeting with Ana marie Cox where she promised me she would stop using the term if I donated to a charity she was sponsoring for research in colon cancer in memory of Tony Snow. I donated $100 and was her top contributor. She thanked me and promised she would stop. She even asked if "teabaggist" would be cheating, and I said yes it would be.

That's right. In a four page report from ABC News titled, "Tens of Thousands Celebrate 20th Anniversary of Berlin Wall's Collapse," Ronald Reagan is not even mentioned. Not once. And from what I have read, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't mention President Reagan, and neither did President Obama in his taped message. I hope I end up being wrong about that, but I kind of doubt that I am.

Good grief. 

Can one even imagine CNN fact checking any of the skits SNL on President Bush or Sarah Palin?? Heaven forbid SNL finally make fun of President Obama. CNN couldn't help themselves. They actually fact checked the jokes. 

[Update, NBStaff, 10:35 am Eastern: Transcript of CNN segment added below.]

The transcript of CNN’s “fact-checking” report, which aired 28 minutes into the 6 pm Eastern hour of Monday's Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER: It seems no politician is safe from Saturday Night Live. While many people think SNL has mostly spared President Obama, what they’re doing now is not necessarily all that kind. They essentially cast the leader of the free world as a do-nothing president, at least so far. Even though SNL deals in comedy, what they said about the President rings true for a lot of you, apparently. So, did the show accurately capture a mood, or did it go off track for comedic effect?

On Thursday I interviewed Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Sentorial Committee. When I asked him about the NRSC running someone against Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010, given the anger many Republicans feel about Specter's vote on the stimulus bill, Cornyn's answer was basically that he would rather have someone voting with him 80% of the time, rather than a liberal Democrat who would vote with him 0% of the time.  

Well, it looks like Sen. Cornyn might be able to get someone who will vote with him more than 80% of the time. Former Congressman Pat Toomey, the current Club for Growth President, announced this morning on Bobby Gunther Walsh's 1-On-1 Show, WAEB, 790AM, that a Primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter is now 'back on the table."

Given Specter's abysmal poll numbers in Pennsylvania right now, this is interesting, to say the least. 

On Sunday the Associated Press reported these words from Vice President Biden:

Just looking at the hypocrisy of the media. So what else is new? But sometimes you just have to point out the obvious.

Christmas day the Washington Post slobbered (metaphorically speaking) all over it's front page about Obama's workout:

"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games."

Now, if that doesn't make you wanna puke in your cornflakes, I don't know what would.

The subtitle of the piece is "Gym Workouts Help Obama Carry the Weight of His Position." The WaPo just gushes about how wonderful it is that Obama stays in shape.

Flashback to Pres. Bush's workouts and how the WaPo described them.

Anderson Cooper of CNN titles his recent post "RNC chair candidate sends out controversial Obama song."

Why is is controversial to make fun of a liberal black columnist calling Obama "The Magic Negro?" It absolutely begs to be made fun of.

It all started when Time's columnist David Ehrenstein wrote a piece titled "Obama the 'Magic Negro" back in March of '07. (You will notice that Anderson doesn't bother to link that column, which would have taken all of 10 seconds to find, to make it clear where the song came from). Paul Shanklin (known of his parody songs) then recorded a parody song as satire directed at the Times that played on Rush Limbaugh's show.

Media sources seemed to be thrilled that Obama is promising to save or create millions of new jobs. The only problem is they seem to purposefully fail to mention that these will primarily be government jobs. From Libertarian Republican:

 A check of all the major mainstream media sources this morning, finds that not a single one of them are using either the phase "Government Jobs," or "Public Sector," in their reporting on Obama's 2.5 million Jobs Program.

The AP is typical of the style of reporting:

Peter Beinart at the Washington Post is afraid this Presidential campaign is going to be about race. He is warning Obama that it shouldn't be. It has been brought up though. But by whom? Here is what Beinart had to say:

That's the lesson of recent weeks, when the McCain campaign brought up race (on the pretext that Obama had brought it up first). The Obama campaign tried desperately to change the subject but couldn't. Once the chum was in the water, the media sharks went wild.

On the pretext that Obama brought it up first? Excuse me? Obama did bring it up first. Obama was the one who threw "the chum" in the water.

At a fundraiser in June here is what Obama said:

The AP article as headlined in the Houston Chronicle:

"Militiamen ambush drives back US patrol in Sadr City"

The story reports:

"The U.S. Military said 28 militamen were killed as the U.S. patrol pulled back."

Not exactly.

Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal gives us the important details. The title of his article?

"US troops kill 28 Mahdi fighters during Sadr City ambush"

His story reports:

Paul Waldman at The American Prospect blames conservatives for all of Obama's race problems.

"For months, I've been predicting that conservatives would delicately prompt voters to see Barack Obama through the lens of race. They'd drop hints, they'd make roundabout arguments, they'd find a hundred subtle ways to encourage people to vote their prejudices, while denying vociferously that they were doing anything of the sort."

Oh, it gets better:

"...these kinds of attacks have their greatest power when they tap into pre-existing archetypes voters already carry with them, and the deeper they reside in our lizard brains the better. So they will make sure white Americans know that Obama is not Tiger Woods. He's not the unthreatening black man, he's the scary black man. He's Al Sharpton, he's Malcom X, he's Huey Newton. He'll throw grievance in your face, make you feel guilty, and who knows, maybe kill you and rape your wife."

What???!!

There is an update on the ongoing saga of the New York Times using an outspoken critic of Guantanamo to help write an article regarding prisoners held there. Andy Worthington, the writer, defends himself here.

My last post for background here. 

It seems Mr. Worthington does not see his profound activism regarding Guantanamo as "outspoken." Writing a book about it called "The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison," doesn't promote a distinct outspoken point of view? Please.

The Daily Kos defends Worthington in the idea that it is so mainstream to believe the way Worthington does about Guantanamo, that is silly to expect the New York Times to have to point out Worthington's bias. 

The New York Times ran a front-page story Tuesday critical of Guantanamo. The article described the case of an Afghan man who died in Guantanamo after five years' detention, allegedly on false charges of being a Taliban commander.

It turns out the writer and co-author of the piece, Andy Worthington, was a well known critic of Guantanamo and of US policy. Now the paper's editors say they "were not aware" of the author's past writings on the subject.

Remember in 2006 when many leftwingers shouted with horror regarding a study that had found over 600,000 Iraqi civilians dead since the war began? I heard this number ad nauseum from my leftwing friends.

The WashingtonPost included the number in this piece. Fox News quoted it with some skepticism. But CNN headlined it.

Yes, it was Chris Matthews:

"I think the Hillary appeal has always been about the mix of toughness and sympathy. Let's not forget, and I'll be brutal, the reason she's a US Senator, the reason she's a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around...That's how she got to be a Senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win it on her merit, she won because everybody felt, 'My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,' right? That's what happened. That's how it happened. In 1998, she went to NY and campaigned for Chuck Schumer as almost like the grieving widow of absurdity, and she did it so well and courageously. But it was about the humilation of Bill Clinton."

I don't think I have ever seen such a harsh analysis of Hillary Clinton. Not from Sean Hannity. Not from Bill O'Reilly.

Could the media be turning on Hillary?

The Los Angeles Times describes this meeting in a cautious manner:

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration and its Israeli and Palestinian allies stepped gingerly toward a new round of formal Mideast peace talks Monday, expressing cautious optimism while lowering expectations for the conference.

But The New York Times could not have painted a more anti-Bush picture, including giving President Clinton some subtle kudos:

Nov. 26 — It might seem, after nearly seven years of deliberate detachment from Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, that President Bush has plunged into Middle Eastern diplomacy with Clintonesque energy.

The article title says "Seeking a Mideast Path, Bush Offers a Nudge." A Nudge? How long did they search for a word that would define as little effort as possible?

It's been five years since John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized Washington D.C. for three weeks by randomly shooting people, killing 10 and wounding three. The news at the time avoided all mention of anything Islamic including calling Muhammad by his old name before Islamic conversion, John Allen Williams.

Investor's Business Daily reveals how CNN's one hour special, "The Minds of the D.C. Snipers," still makes no mention of the Islam connection despite the following evidence:

"The jailhouse drawings of the younger sniper, Malvo, tell it all:

• One sketch of Osama bin Laden exalts him as a "Servant of Allah."

• A self-portrait of him and Muhammad is captioned: "We will kill them all. Jihad . . . Allah Akbar!"

• A sketch of the burning Twin Towers has as its caption: "America did this. You were warned."