An interesting discussion occurred on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday when host Howard Kurtz raised the issue of MSNBC intentionally moving to the left politically, as well as its failed attempt to hire Rosie O'Donnell.
Maybe most shocking was conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved saying of the recent events at MSNBC, "I think itshows that they're getting smart."
Coming in a close second was Jennifer Pozner of Women in Media and News stating with a straight face "the majority of the people who host shows on MSNBC are either centrists or conservative," and that Keith Olbermann "is a liberal host, but he doesn't necessarily promote liberal candidates or promote liberal projects."
Deliciously, that might not have been the most absurd statement from Pozner this day (partial transcript follows with emphasis added for your entertainment pleasure):
Should I be worried? I just agreed with something Neal Gabler said. On yesterday's Fox News Watch, the liberal media critic opined that the MSM is backing Benazir Bhutto over Pervez Musharraf in the current Pakistan crisis -- and not for the loftiest of motives.
And could Hillary fall prey to the scenario that brought down Michael Dukakis?
On Sunday, America's leading wire service published an article that more closely resembled a Democrat talking points memo than anything I've seen in months.
In fact, it could have been written by the Democrat that did the response to President Bush's radio address on Saturday.
In a piece amazingly entitled "Sense of History Eludes Bush in Radio Attack on Democrats," after quoting some of the President's words concerning his desire that Congress pass a veterans spending bill before the Thanksgiving break, the Associated Press editorialized (h/t NBer saw the light, emphasis added throughout):
For general debate and discussion. Possible talking point: What are your thoughts about what Musharraf is doing in Pakistan? Is this a righteous fight for his life and the future of democracy in his country, or a totally unacceptable abuse of power where the end does not justify the means?
How overmatched were the two lukewarm-at-best Republicans that "Today" tossed in against two partisan Dems this morning? If NBC scheduled this unfair a fight for Sunday Night Football, Al Michaels would be calling the play-by-play between the New England Patriots and the proverbial Little Sisters of Mercy.
The Today show's farce of a "voter panel" was invited to discuss politics and the state of the country this morning. With tens of millions of voters to choose from, NBC can of course contrive any cross-section it wants. So the views expressed by the participants say relatively little about the mood of the country -- but a lot about the network's own political bias.
Planned Parenthood is at it again -- lying about its construction plans. Catholic News Agency reports the Catholic bishops of Colorado (Denver, Pueblo, and Colorado Springs) are calling out the abortion industry giant's tactics:
The bishops write, “In early November, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) broke ground on a new headquarters and clinic in northeast Denver.” They “purchased this property secretly under the guise of Fuller 38 LLC.”
“Planned Parenthood told the Denver Post that PPRM planned to complete the entire project in secrecy to avoid protests and delays that other Planned Parenthood buildings have encountered around the country.”
As the movie studios gear up for a big Christmas movie season, one trailer that looks like a blockbuster is “The Golden Compass,” which must be trying to cash in on the “Narnia” movies. It has flashy special-effect polar bears in armor and a young heroic damsel in distress facing off against evil forces. The casting is top-notch, led by Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, the current star spy in the James Bond movies.
But buyer beware: Narnia it’s not. It’s the anti-Narnia. Instead of a Christian allegory, it’s an anti-Christian allegory. The author of “The Golden Compass,” Philip Pullman, is an atheist who despises C. S. Lewis and his much-beloved Narnia series. “I thought they were loathsome,” he said of those books, “full of bullying and sneering, propaganda, basically, on behalf of a religion whose main creed seemed to be to despise and hate people unlike yourself.”
Major Garrett of Fox News broke a story on the 9th that revealed that the Hillary Clinton campaign had admitted to planting questions at a Newton, Iowa town hall meeting. Garrett reported that the Clinton campaign promised that planted questions would not happen again, but this isn't something new for the Clinton campaign. Hillary has controlled the media with an iron fist yet few from the media have complained about it. And now, only a few MSM sources seem interested in this tale. Why is this story being ignored by the major media outlets? Worse, why do they allow Clinton to hamstring their ability to cover her without complaint? And, remembering how they reacted in 2005 when they thought the Bush administration planted questions, why are they letting Hillary slip by untouched?
Shouldn't it be big news that a candidate refuses to allow candid questioning on the campaign trail? Of the incident, Garrett says, "In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans." But, Iowans shouldn't be the only ones who should find Clinton's actions disturbing.
On Thursday, Karl Rove gave a speech about politics and the Internet at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel, and, as reported by the Washington Times, commented about the frequent incidence of vulgarity at liberal blogs:
Mr. Rove cited the results of a study that found that writers and commenters on liberal blogs such as DailyKos.com cursed far more than writers and commenters on conservative Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com.
"My point is not that liberals swear publicly more often than conservatives. That may be true, but that's not my point," Mr. Rove said. "It is that the netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion."
Our friend at Gateway Pundit observed this hysterical albeit predictable Netroots response (vulgarity present after the break, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
The Independent Television Service (ITVS) is a left-wing "independent" film-makers collective funded through our tax dollars (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to be exact). "Independent" isn’t really the right word. These filmmakers may be outside a corporate or studio system, but any glance of the ITVS grants shows there are no conservative filmmakers in America today making anti-Michael Moore films that celebrate capitalism or anti-abortion films or films against illegal immigration with government subsidies provided by ITVS.
ITVS lives up to its leftist values by adding political activism. It has a community-organizing emphasis. It shows its films not just on PBS stations, but also organizes free community showings in theaters. It also has hired organizers to "leverage" its leftist films to "build stronger connections" and spur on a more aggressive fight for "social justice."
A defender of abortion falsely claims in a letter in today's Los Angeles Times (Sat. 11/10/07), "The Bible does mention abortion." The erroneous reader adds that a passage in the Bible, Numbers 5, gives a "a detailed formula designed to end a pregnancy." In fact, the cited passage makes no mention of pregnancy, abortion, or miscarriage whatsoever. The reader's assertions are simply false.
Does the dishonesty at the Los Angeles Times regarding the abortion issue know no bounds? Does anyone at the Times own a Bible? Are there fact checkers at the paper?
On Thursday, NewsBuster Amy Ridenour reported the hysterical protestations of the liberal blog Think Progress concerning conservative websites like ours having the unmitigated audacity to share with readers the global warming skepticism of The Weather Channel founder John Coleman.
Our crime against humanity (emphasis added for your amusement):
The right wing should check Coleman's credentials before touting his "scientific" work. As Coleman admits, his "expertise" is in weather - not climate change science. In fact, he "has been a TV weathermansince he was a freshman in college in 1953."
Oh my goodness. You mean that someone who's been professionally reporting on the weather for over 50 years shouldn't be allowed to comment about the climate, but a political blog that's been in existence for less than three years should?
Adding insult to absurdity, take a look at the bio for the Think Progresser that wrote this ridiculous critique (emphasis again added for your amusement):
Students pose for a photograph with a cardboard cutout of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as they arrive for a speech by Senator Clinton at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Massachusetts November 1, 2007. Wellesley College is Senator Clinton's alma mater. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Remember those anti-war Iraq movies Hollywood was crowing about this summer? Turns out that crowing was more than a little premature: they've been spectacular bombs at the box office:
The wave of recent films set against the backdrop of war in Iraq and post-9/11 security has failed to win over film-goers keen to escape grim news headlines when they go to the movies, analysts say. [...]
Almost without exception, however, the crop of movies have struggled to turn a profit at the box-office and in many cases have received a mauling from unimpressed critics as well.
"Rendition," a drama starring Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal about the CIA's policy of outsourcing interrogation of terror suspects, has taken just under 10 million dollars at the box office, a disastrous return.
Just two days ago, Gail Collins christened her column about the Pat Robertson endorsement "Pat Loves Rudy."
As I observed then, "a conservative columnist writing the equivalent might well be condemned for making an unsubtle appeal to homophobia. But Collins will surely get a pass in PC quarters, since it's a well-established fact that liberals are incapable of prejudice."
Then comes today's column -- and I'll be darned if Collins hasn't done it again.
You'd better strap yourself in tightly before proceeding, for the following story and video will likely shock you more than anything you've seen in quite some time.
On Thursday, in the middle of NBC's "Green is Universal" campaign, an ABC affiliate in Tyler, Texas, broadcast a segment during one of its news programs focusing exclusively on positions skeptical of man's role in climate change.
In fact, one of the meteorologists involved actually referred to this whole issue as "the manmade global warming myth."
During the piece, not only did the two anchors express a viewpoint contrary to the current media meme, but also the reporter, Molly Reuter, and the station's three meteorologists, unanimously spoke against the view held by Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his sycophant devotees (video available here):
For Rolling Stone’s 40th anniversary magazine, one of the celebrities interviewed was the atheist, leftist HBO comedian/pundit Bill Maher. Even as Maher has long professed his support for Bill Clinton's sexual freedom (remember this gig as Clinton's talking little Willy?), he still says of Hillary, "F— them and their Clinton baggage...when the Democrats want a sure winner, John Edwards looks like it." Whoever wins for the Democrats, Maher hopes they’re good at lying to the voters:
ROLLING STONE: What’s your best case scenario for the future?
MAHER: First of all, some Democrat better win it in 2008. Then that person should go for broke and say to the people, "Now I have to tell you the truth. I couldn’t do it when I was running, because you are a bunch of babies who can’t take the truth, and you know damn well you wouldn’t have voted for me if I said that. But we’re going to take these painful measures."
The sad part of it is, the money is there to do almost anything we want. It’s not as if you’d have to raise taxes so much. If you took the money being wasted on Iraq, corporate welfare and the drug war, you would have trillions of dollars to work with. That’s the core of it. Whoever is the next president has to get at this corporate state we’ve found ourselves living in.
Those that have wondered how someone like Rosie O'Donnell can be so disturbingly wrong about virtually every important issue of the day got an answer Thursday afternoon: she gets her news from Keith Olbermann.
In fact, not only does Rosie think "Countdown" is actually a news program, she believes it's "the best news show on TV."
Explains a lot, doesn't it?
After all, it's one thing to watch this show for the entertainment value, but quite another to be so intellectually challenged as to be incapable of divining the difference between news and opinion.
Yet, if you fast-forward to minute 2:00 of the following video, you will actually see and hear Rosie make possibly her most addle-minded statement to date:
Not a lot of great looking matchups today, or am I missing something?
Just for fun, and because a friend of mine is a Badger, I think Wisconsin at home can upset the Wolverines. Or am I out of my mind?
Lookout for those Red Raiders upsetting the Horns. Or am I out of my mind?
My Bears are going to make me REALLY angry and actually beat the Trojans leading many Northern Californians like myself to wonder what might have been if we hadn't stumbled against two teams we should have easily beaten.
Finally, the game of the day is Auburn vs. Georgia. Having gone to school for one year in Atlanta, I know what this game means to folks down there. And, for it to happen with both teams playing so well, this one is going to be a thing of beauty.
It's getting hard to exaggerate the left-wing rantings of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. This week, he railed against the "criminal conspiracy to cover the ass" of the "fascist" Bush administration. It probably won't be long before he's dropping the F-word on-air. Olbermann also attacked the "nightmare presidency" of the current commander in chief and mocked Bush's "cynical exploitation" of 9/11. It's really a shame this guy won't have Rosie O'Donnell to follow him on MSNBC, huh?
Speaking of liberal MSNBC hosts (sorry for being redundant), Chris Matthews on Tuesday took credit for a line that Hillary Clinton recently used about leadership. Last week Mathews offered her some free advice and seemed pleased that she took it. "Well done," he enthused.
Now that Rosie O'Donnell is out of the running as host of a prime time MSNBC show, speculation has started anew about who will be named to host the program. Among the more amusing of these speculations come from Cenk Uygur, host of an Air America morning show. Writing in the Huffington Post on November 7, Uygur scans the field of candidates for the MSNBC slot:
I would love to say that the right person for the job is one of the progressives I know either at Air America or in the liberal blogosphere. And all of these people are incredibly capable and would do a terrific job if given the opportunity (Rachel Maddow, Sam Seder, Thom Hartmann, among many others, come to mind (maybe even a non-hosts like Josh Marshall or Jane Hamsher)).
I'm also tempted to nominate Jack Cafferty as a possibility, even though he is not a progressive, because he has so clearly taken on the Bush administration in a sane and rational way for the last couple of years.
Someone needs to tell me why this news about discretionary income isn't as significant as I believe it is.
But first, three warnings: 1. I'm not about to spend the $250 needed to read the full report from the Conference Board that backs the story (their "about" page is here). 2. I don't feel totally comfortable with how the statistic is measured -- "Households with discretionary income, as defined by the study, are those whose spendable income exceeds that held by households with similar demographic features." 3. I don't feel totally comfortable that the statistic has been measured consistently.
Now with the disclaimers out of the way, here's the stunning news: More Americans have "money to burn," technically known as "discretionary income," than at any time in the past quarter-century, and perhaps in the country's history.
A lot more. A whole lot more.
So many more that I went as far back as I could for comparable stats.
I can't believe we all missed this one from November 6th, but The New York Times read the cable TV ratings tea leaves and decided that the left is "riding a ratings wave" to dominate the medium. Using the supposed "ratings wave" that the NYTimes imagines has propelled Keith Olbermann to some sort of success story, they have decided that it's all good on cable for the left. Yet, any look at the real ratings makes it hard to understand the Times' claims unless they have based all their hopes on mere wishful thinking instead of factual proof. Not only did the Times wildly exaggerate Keith Olbermann's success but they went as far as to say that Olbermann was "tantalizingly close" to rival Bill O'Reilly's ratings -- a claim that the Times is off the mark with by nearly 2 million viewers! As it turns out the "ratings wave" the Times is so excited about seems more like a trickle and could hardly be taken as evidence of some sort of major shift in viewer preferences. Obviously the "paper of record" is trying hard to create their own reality here!
In "Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left" the Times reported the obvious drift left that MSNBC has been taking, a direction the cable station was poised to drive further off the cliff with the addition of a new Rosie O'Donnell slime fest -- the one that didn't pan out due to Rosie's queering the deal. But, the analysis thoroughly missed the mark and amounted far more to an Olbermann wet dream than reality.
The CBS Evening News, which has aired only one full story on the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton's fugitive donor Norman Hsu, on Friday night ran its second full story on the impact on Rudy Giuliani of Bernard Kerik's indictments as Byron Pitts told Kerik that “people” say you're “a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President.” Back on August 31, in the newscast's only full story on Hsu, fill-in anchor Harry Smith didn't even mention Hillary Clinton's name in his introduction, but on Friday Katie Couric put Giuliani front and center: “Kerik isn't the only one who could face trouble. It's also bad news for his friend and mentor, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.”
In the Hsu story, CBS reporter Sandra Hughes didn't warn about any negative impact on the Hillary Clinton campaign or speculate about what Hillary Clinton knew about Hsu's criminal past or suspect bundling. But in the Giuliani piece, Pitts predicted: “Kerik's legal problems could mean political problems for Giuliani and the inevitable questions of the presidential candidate: What did he know and when did he know it?” In an exchange with Kerik, Pitts proposed: “There are people who say that you, forgive me, are a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President, because of your own troubles.”
Liberals wouldn't lift a finger to stop the torturing to death of an unborn child. But put a terrorist [or a baby seal, for that matter] in the block and watch them spring into sensitive-soul mode.
Rosa Brooks epitomizes the mindset in her current LA Times column, "Torture: the new abortion." Her notion is that among Republicans, the new litmus test for presidential candidates is not opposition to abortion but support for U.S. officials who order the "torture of prisoners."
The Washington Post front page on Friday morning highlighted a "Historically Low Tally" in the Senate to confirm Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Reporters Dan Eggen and Paul Kane, who pounded away at the U.S. Attorney scandal that undid former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, highlighted his narrow (hollow?) victory in gloomy terms:
The final tally gave Mukasey the lowest number of yes votes for any attorney general since 1952, just weeks after lawmakers of both parties had predicted his easy confirmation. Mukasey takes the place of Alberto R. Gonzales, who left under a cloud of scandal in September.
He avoided defeat only because a half-dozen Democrats voted in favor of the appointment along with Republicans and Democrat-turned-independentJoseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
On Thursday, all of NBC's entertainment programs pushed liberal environmental themes, but "30 Rock" -- a satirical take on the inner workings of NBC -- was the pushiest, featuring a scene in which Al Gore suggested to fictional NBC executive Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) that the network go green for a week (as NBC has done in real life). "If your network really wants to demonstrate a commitment to the environment, why don't you start by, for example, having an entire week with nothing but environmental themes on all the programs," Gore recommended. "Use entertainment for substance. You could have a character in prime time making a passionate argument to the American people that we need CO2 taxes to replace the payroll taxes. Your parent company could lobby congress and the President to pass the treaty and save the climate."