Politico's Alexander Burns Trips and Falls in 'Correction' of Gingrich About Abortion Bias
Politico's Alexander Burns came out of Wednesday night's debate eager to "correct" Newt Gingrich for whapping CNN moderator John King for asking about contraception yet again (through the device of "hey, I have a question here from the audience.") Gingrich replied: “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”
Burns claimed that was wrong, and found an example (or...actually, he didn't):
MRC reported in 2008 that the media glossed over Obama's abortion record as they scorched Sarah Palin for her pro-life beliefs.
The reference was to Obama’s vote in the Illinois state Senate against a measure banning late-term abortions. The audience cheered and neither King nor Gingrich’s opponents challenged the assertion. But of course, Obama was asked about the vote during the 2008 campaign. It was a major source of criticism. Only one example is this interview Obama gave to “Fox News Sunday” in April of that year, during which he explained his views like so:
On an issue like partial-birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.
Not that that will take away from Gingrich scoring points by attacking the hated media …
But the "hated media" sometimes ought to read the transcript twice before puffing themselves up. Is this what they taught the Harvard Class of 2008? One might think Burns spent more time partying than watching the media in '08, because Obama's three votes in the Illinois state legislature against a "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" barely came up.
The Politico headline was "Newt: Media never asked Obama about 'infanticide' -- except it did." If Burns wanted to prove Gingrich wrong, he'd find an actual question about that. Click on the Burns link, and it's quite clear Chris Wallace was asking a more generic question to Obama, about whether he was truly a bridge-builder:
WALLACE: But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, "Let's be post-partisan, let's all come together," just a couple of quick things, and I don't really want you to defend each one. I just want to speak to the larger issue.
OBAMA: Right.
WALLACE: The gang of 14, which was a group, a bipartisan coalition, to try to resolve the issue of judicial nominations. Fourteen senators came together. You weren't part of it. On some issues where Democrats have moved to the center — partial birth abortion, defense of marriage act — you stay on the left and you are against both.
And so people say, "Do you really want a partnership with Republicans, or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?"
Overnight, Burns reported "conservative readers" pointed out to him what should have been obvious to him. His link didn't prove his case.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
BIAS
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 8:33am.
In just about every case the msm acknowledges a 'misspeak' (LIE) by making up another lie.
We expect nothing else from them.
Media
Submitted by NewLife56 on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 8:54am.
There is no legit media anymore, nada, zippo, no way.
The MSM now feels like they have an obligation to defend Obama, and when they can't they make up anything they can.
Alexander Burns's "audience"
Submitted by spepper on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 9:22am.
The voices of Alexander Burns's "audience" originate strictly from the space between his EARS.
Ya have to unnerstand
Submitted by Huapakechi on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 9:28am.
Without revisionist history, liberalism could not be a viable political entity.
The continual record of blunders, outrages, fraud, cronyism, and rule by fiat would have them lynched if it were not for a continual rewriting of history.
One has to wonder at the ultimate aims of the people who support and defend the liberal political agenda.
a submitter has a few things to say about this
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 9:41am.
look into what Jill Stanek has said about Obama. She is clearly the Subject Matter Expert on this topic.
http://www.jillstanek.com/
http://newsbusters.org/user/jillstanek-0
Outta
Submitted by kilrod on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 10:27am.
Thanks for these links OuttaMyWay, Jill Stanek does good work.
Untill "we" nuetralize the lib sub-slime media this country will continue to swirl down the drain to septic socialism.
kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Who can you trust!
Submitted by iamsaved on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 9:53am.
It seems we not only have a President who has lied to us on numerous occasions, a judicial system you can pretty much predict the outcome of the decision based on which President appointed them, journalists that outright lie or omit pertinent facts to a story, and a government that will manipulate and distort data to sway congress into passing morally bankrupt laws - to wit, the recent findings that the Navy manipulated data to show the military was in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Tell me. Who can you trust anymore?
According to the MSM . . .
Submitted by WingletDriver on Thu, 02/23/2012 - 10:46am.
According to the MSM Fox is not a legitimate news outlet. That question came from Fox news.